I was just wondering

[SuperBills12]

What happened to the Bills and Mike Mularky...I mean they were 9-7 in 2004, a pretty good record and one win away from the playoffs....then bam last year, we suck again...I'll be honest, I thought MM was going to be a good one

[Beerball]

He apparently lost control of his bladder in a closed door team meeting. He was never able to regain the respect of the players.

 

We picked up wins in 04 against some pretty terrible teams.

[ACor58]

We picked up wins in 04 against some pretty terrible teams.

726631[/snapback]

 

And confirmed how bad we were by losing to The Steeler's 2nd and 3rd stringers.

[AJ1]

What happened to the Bills and Mike Mularky...I mean they were 9-7 in 2004, a pretty good record and one win away from the playoffs....then bam last year, we suck again...I'll be honest, I thought MM was going to be a good one

726630[/snapback]

 

The guy should be a spokesman for Viagra. Things start to go south and he's standing on the sideline acting like he's making a commercial for impotence (the before part). The guy had no control over anything and he exuded meatheaded-ness like he was trying to sell that also.

[2003Contenders]

What happened to the Bills and Mike Mularky...I mean they were 9-7 in 2004, a pretty good record and one win away from the playoffs....then bam last year, we suck again...I'll be honest, I thought MM was going to be a good one

726630[/snapback]

 

 

That really is a very good question, SuperBills12. And it is very hard to pin down directly. After all, MM didn't become stupid overnight. He's the same guy that had weathered plenty of adversity in 2004 to keep the ship sailing. And, the same Jerry Gray that was canned after the 2005 season, was the same Jerry Gray who had been the DC for a top 2 defense the previous two seasons. I also don't think that this was entirely lost on Marv and Ralph either, as both wanted MM back for 2006.

 

I really think that much of it boiled down to MM's inability to see the reality of what was going on right before his eyes. And that starts with the 2004 season, where we started off 0-4 and 1-5 before getting hot and winning 8 of the last 10 games. I think MM saw our strong finish -- the Pittsburgh game not withstanding -- and thought that we would come out of the gates rolling in 2005. The reality is that the ridiculously favorable schedule that we played late in the season played a significant role in what was probably a somewhat inflated record. And chinks in the defense's ability to stop the run were quite apparant in that Pittsburgh fiasco, just as it had been weeks earlier when Corey Dillon ran the ball down the throat of the defense.

 

Moreover, MM and TD seriously underestimated the importance of Pat Williams to the defense and Drew Bledsoe to the offense. Yes, Drew had his shortcomings, but he was also a calm veteran in whom the rest of the team had great faith. MM probably lost the lockerroom with his decision to hand JP the job without any competition. Realizing this, that's why MM insisted on riding the tail end of the season with Kelly, even though it was in the team's long-term best interests to give JP more playing time. By then it was too late, as MM had essentially already castrated himself. Moulds and Adams made sure of that.

 

God knows that we have had inferior teams on the field in terms of talent in the history of our franchise, but the more I hear about what all went on last year both on the field and off, the more I think THAT team was the MOST dysfunctional. From that perspective, I think the fatherly Marv/Dick combo will serve as a nice change of pace.

[OnTheRocks]

The guy should be a spokesman for Viagra.  Things start to go south and he's standing on the sideline acting like he's making a commercial for impotence (the before part).  The guy had no control over anything and he exuded meatheaded-ness like he was trying to sell that also.

726643[/snapback]

 

i agree he was in over his head, but i also think given time he would have developed into a solid head coach. the problem is, as Jerry Glanville said, NFL stands for "Not For Long" if you don't come in ready from the get go.

[kenny3000]

That really is a very good question, SuperBills12. And it is very hard to pin down directly. After all, MM didn't become stupid overnight. He's the same guy that had weathered plenty of adversity in 2004 to keep the ship sailing. And, the same Jerry Gray that was canned after the 2005 season, was the same Jerry Gray who had been the DC for a top 2 defense the previous two seasons. I also don't think that this was entirely lost on Marv and Ralph either, as both wanted MM back for 2006.

 

I really think that much of it boiled down to MM's inability to see the reality of what was going on right before his eyes. And that starts with the 2004 season, where we started off 0-4 and 1-5 before getting hot and winning 8 of the last 10 games. I think MM saw our strong finish -- the Pittsburgh game not withstanding -- and thought that we would come out of the gates rolling in 2005. The reality is that the ridiculously favorable schedule that we played late in the season played a significant role in what was probably a somewhat inflated record. And chinks in the defense's ability to stop the run were quite apparant in that Pittsburgh fiasco, just as it had been weeks earlier when Corey Dillon ran the ball down the throat of the defense.

 

Moreover, MM and TD seriously underestimated the importance of Pat Williams to the defense and Drew Bledsoe to the offense. Yes, Drew had his shortcomings, but he was also a calm veteran in whom the rest of the team had great faith. MM probably lost the lockerroom with his decision to hand JP the job without any competition. Realizing this, that's why MM insisted on riding the tail end of the season with Kelly, even though it was in the team's long-term best interests to give JP more playing time. By then it was too late, as MM had essentially already  castrated himself. Moulds and Adams made sure of that.

 

God knows that we have had inferior teams on the field in terms of talent in the history of our franchise, but the more I hear about what all went on last year both on the field and off, the more I think THAT team was the MOST dysfunctional. From that perspective, I think the fatherly Marv/Dick combo will serve as a nice change of pace.

726672[/snapback]

 

great answer

 

i nominate for best post of the year

[BUFFALOTONE]

great answer

 

i nominate for best post of the year

726690[/snapback]

 

I wouldn't go that far chief.

[OnTheRocks]

I wouldn't go that far chief.

726697[/snapback]

 

i nominate this as the best post of the year.

 

[kenny3000]

I wouldn't go that far chief.

726697[/snapback]

 

 

sorry boss

[stevewin]

I think one of the most amazing things that is easy to forget is that MM would still be our coach if he didn't quit!

[AJ1]

I think one of the most amazing things that is easy to forget is that MM would still be our coach if he didn't quit! 

726704[/snapback]

 

The thing that I initially found most distressing immediately after the Levy hire was why Ralph and Marv were intend of working with MM. Ralph, I could see him wanting to save a few bucks but what was Marv's excuse? I don't think he had studied the tapes, or he didn't want to offend Ralph, or he may have thought he could coach by proxy in that he could order Mularkey to carry out his orders. I don't know. It's one of the things I'm most perplexed about concerning Marv's takeover.

[oregonbbfan]

Before MM left, Marv thought that MM had some issues ( lack of leadership and some trouble makers in the lockerroom ) but I think Marv was willing to work with him in correcting them. MM missed an opportunity to be a better coach with input, not meddling from Marv. MM may have felt that it would again be like TD and RW giving mandates ( play JP, etc. ).

 

It may have been a little bumpy at first but with input from Marv ( getting rid of old players on the downside, troublemakers, and lazy players) and an influx of more talent and youth would have been benefitial and allowed him to remain a head coach and the continuity that goes with it.

 

MM may have been willing to give it a shot until his family was hearing it at shops and at school. I don't know how much was true but it wouldn't take much for me to say "who needs this". I know I'll get the " have some nads" stuff but that will probably be from those that don't have kids or a wife. If it wasn't true I apolagize, but if true, keep the the family out of it.

 

That said, I think the new staff is better and will surprise a lot of people especially if our Strength and Conditioning coach ( dumbest move by MM ) is anywhere near Rusty Jones in intelligence.

[ganesh]

He apparently lost control of his bladder in a closed door team meeting.  He was never able to regain the respect of the players.

 

We picked up wins in 04 against some pretty terrible teams.

726631[/snapback]

 

Yup 4-0 against the most feared NFC West

[Pyrite Gal]

That really is a very good question, SuperBills12. And it is very hard to pin down directly. After all, MM didn't become stupid overnight. He's the same guy that had weathered plenty of adversity in 2004 to keep the ship sailing. And, the same Jerry Gray that was canned after the 2005 season, was the same Jerry Gray who had been the DC for a top 2 defense the previous two seasons. I also don't think that this was entirely lost on Marv and Ralph either, as both wanted MM back for 2006.

 

I really think that much of it boiled down to MM's inability to see the reality of what was going on right before his eyes. And that starts with the 2004 season, where we started off 0-4 and 1-5 before getting hot and winning 8 of the last 10 games. I think MM saw our strong finish -- the Pittsburgh game not withstanding -- and thought that we would come out of the gates rolling in 2005. The reality is that the ridiculously favorable schedule that we played late in the season played a significant role in what was probably a somewhat inflated record. And chinks in the defense's ability to stop the run were quite apparant in that Pittsburgh fiasco, just as it had been weeks earlier when Corey Dillon ran the ball down the throat of the defense.

 

Moreover, MM and TD seriously underestimated the importance of Pat Williams to the defense and Drew Bledsoe to the offense. Yes, Drew had his shortcomings, but he was also a calm veteran in whom the rest of the team had great faith. MM probably lost the lockerroom with his decision to hand JP the job without any competition. Realizing this, that's why MM insisted on riding the tail end of the season with Kelly, even though it was in the team's long-term best interests to give JP more playing time. By then it was too late, as MM had essentially already  castrated himself. Moulds and Adams made sure of that.

 

God knows that we have had inferior teams on the field in terms of talent in the history of our franchise, but the more I hear about what all went on last year both on the field and off, the more I think THAT team was the MOST dysfunctional. From that perspective, I think the fatherly Marv/Dick combo will serve as a nice change of pace.

726672[/snapback]

 

I feel that while the particulars about our opponents weakness in 2004 and the loss of PW having a negative effect (Edwards is a fine reserve if he can let it all hang out for a few plays but when he has to pace himself to last a whole game as a starter so one cannot deny he was a downgrade) in losing him. However, though these two items are true, I think they had a negligible and second tier impact causing our dismal 2005.

 

A. Yes the opponents were not good teams during the streak, but I think it overstates things to attribute our 2004 good results vs. 2005 bad results to this as:

 

1. We beat the bad opponents badly- I think it would make more sense to attribute our streak to lucking out in getting poor opponents if we had barely scraped by even a few of these opponent. Yet, in general, we beat the crap out of them, won going aways and evn was able to give JP significant mop-up time against several of them. Clearly a team like the Brownies was bad, but even in their house we manhandled them. If one is to conclude we have always been a bad team even in 2004, then I think one would have seen the impacts of them playing good or average teams even more. If we beat a 6 bad teams soundly during the winning streak, we should have seen 6 2-14 records from this crew as this more horrible than us oppnent played other better teams than us.

 

2. We won several road games during this streak- Homefield is not a guarantee of a win in this league, but it is one thing which seems to make a few points difference week in and week out. It speaks to the quality of our play in 2004 that we were a good team that year (even under the hated MM) that we produced wins in difficult circumstances (even on the west coast trip which usually killed us on the famous cheeseburger flight) that I think raises questions about attributing our success substantially to weak opponents.

 

3. Look at the 2004 records of the specific teams- The 6 opponents we beat in the streak were St. L, Sea, MI, CLE, CIN, SF. Clearly CLE and SF were bad then and bad now. However, the Fins were not good then but not worse than we are now and it was in their house. However, both St. L and CIN were average not bad NFL teams as the finished 8-8 that year. Seattle not only finished with a winning record that year, but made the playoffs. Clearly both CIN and Sea were on the upswing as both were great in 2005 and Sea even made the SB.

 

The 2004 schedule was not a strong group, but it contained teams that ranged from horrendous to on the upswing and even a team which made the SB. Most impressive about our opponents during the streak was that we simply destroyed the two best CIN ans SEA in their houses.

 

B. As I noted losing PW was a definite downgrade at DT, but again his lost does not explain (or I think make more than a marginal difference in the big picture) our bad 2005 results and inability to stop the run.

 

1. Phat Pat only lined up for 2/3 of the D snaps in 2004, If his presence made such a huge difference in explaining the results of a 2005 squad which returned the other 10 defenders, then one should have noted at least some difference in performance for the 1/3 of the game PW was not there in 2004.

 

2. If PW was so great, then one would have expected him to make a notable difference at his new gig in MN. PW played well enough last year, but was not so great that week in and week out we kicked ourselves seeing his outstanding production.

 

3. We sucked not only at early down run-stopping (PW's specialty for the significant but specific use we put him to) but even worse on 3rd down stops which PW played no direct role in. Perhaps the PW difference here is that a fresher Edwards not required to start would have been there to be a fresh rusher if onlt we kept PW. However, this argument begins to clearly build a "then if" chain of occurences which seem unlikely to totally explain our run stopping breakdown from the 2nd game on.

 

Missing PW was a factor though there are few signs it was the pivotal or even a huge factor in our record.

 

There are several items which make more sense to me to explain the fact of the 2005 demolition:

 

1. The players felt that the Bills braintrust had given up on winning in 2005- Bledsoe was not a playoff caliber QB for us if he had been kept in 2005. However, he was clearly a more productive QB than the young JP was. I think the team gave it a shot beating a bad Texans team on the road, but it was clear to internal observers that TD had decided to use 2005 has training camp for JP rather than give the players the best chance they had (even if it was a bad chance it was the best we had) tto win now. As such I think the players quickly began to play for themselves and not for each other and this had a big effect.

 

2. Opponents had a ton of tape on our D- Ironically, I think keeping 10 of 11 players ended up being a bigger negative than positive for us. Oppomemt had tons of tape on exactly how players performed in our zone blitz and one clear area of greater weakness to exploit. Gray did well playcalling for the zone blitz in 2003 after a horrible D performance the year before . He did well designing the gameplan on his own and making in game adjustments in 2004. However, he simply needed to change up the D to keep opponents from exploiting its weaknesses in 2005 and did not do this.

 

3. TC works better with older QBs- Another irony is here that Clements had a lot of success as a QB coach in Pitts helping revive the career of the failed Maddox (and potentially reviving the failed Kordell though the timing of TC hiring may give MM the credit though this context is the one TC learned in under MM as OC in Pitts). TC also had good production reviving Drew in 04 after a horrendous 03. Like I or not and admit it or not which those who simply hate Bledsoe may refuse to do, they made tremendous use of what DB could do well (sling the ball like a rocket given time, very good ball handler, a lot of experience to program though he cannot improvise) by taking away his ability to audible, using his ability to run fakes, and even running him on occaision which you must do to stop the blitz even though no one will ever mistake Bledsoe for Elway. I think part of this may be that TC simplyy could not run an effective O which was geared more toward training the young JP rather than using what a vet QB could do well and minimizing what he did poorly.

 

4. The 2004 players were motivated by the fear of being cut if they did not produce- I think a big part of the 2004 story which is not talked about much was the cut of Bobby Shaw at WR which coincided with the streak. Shaw was a good player who had contributed a lot to the Bills in 2003 when Moulds went down to injury and Reed developed the droppsies at #2 WR. Shaw actually stepped up as the go-to guy at #1 WR when many wondered whether he was even an adequate #3. he was not adequate at #1 but was passable and he clearly contributed a lot in 03.

 

However, he was well down the depth chart with the acquisition of Evans, hopes for Aiken and even Reed struggling back to contribute. he was clearly not a cancer in the locker room and was even well liked by many. Yet, when the Bills had to activate Peters or potentially lose him off the PS, Shaw got the axe even though after game 2 the Bills were on the hook for his entire contract if he sat at home. What have you done for us lately and all the Bills knew that if you did not contribute on the field, having a big contract and being a nice guy may well not save you. Every Bill played for their job after this cut.

 

However, though this motivational technique payed off in 2004, particularly when the result was not the playoffs, one can only go to the fear well as a guy in charge judiciously. You can only drive folks to succeed for a little while and then you have to lead by example and from the front. TD set an example based on playing for 2006 rather than 2005. His job did not seem to be at risk but all the players have short careers.

 

I think that these are the bigger factors which explain the stinky 05 than looking to the absence of the OK but not great PW or overblowing how weak the opponents were during the win streak.

[drg2021]

I feel that while the particulars about our opponents weakness in 2004 and the loss of PW having a negative effect (Edwards is a fine reserve if he can let it all hang out for a few plays but when he has to pace himself to last a whole game as a starter so one cannot deny he was a downgrade) in losing him.  However, though these two items are true, I think they had a negligible and second tier impact causing our dismal 2005.

 

A. Yes the opponents were not good teams during the streak, but I think it overstates things to attribute our 2004 good results vs. 2005 bad results to this as:

 

1. We beat the bad opponents badly-  I think it would make more sense to attribute our streak to lucking out in getting poor opponents if we had barely scraped by even a few of these opponent.  Yet, in general, we beat the crap out of them, won going aways and evn was able to give JP significant mop-up time against several of them.  Clearly a team like the Brownies was bad, but even in their house we manhandled them.  If one is to conclude we have always been a bad team even in 2004, then I think one would have seen the impacts of them playing good or average teams even more.  If we beat a 6 bad teams soundly during the winning streak, we should have seen 6 2-14 records from this crew as this more horrible than us oppnent played other better teams than us.

 

2. We won several road games during this streak- Homefield is not a guarantee of a win in this league, but it is one thing which seems to make a few points difference week in and week out.  It speaks to the quality of our play in 2004 that we were a good team that year (even under the hated MM) that we produced wins in difficult circumstances  (even on the west coast trip which usually killed us on the famous cheeseburger flight) that I think raises questions about attributing our success substantially to weak opponents.

 

3. Look at the 2004 records of the specific teams- The 6 opponents we beat in the streak were St. L, Sea, MI, CLE, CIN, SF.  Clearly CLE and SF were bad then and bad now. However, the Fins were not good then but not worse than we are now and it was in their house.  However, both St. L and CIN were average not bad NFL teams as the finished 8-8 that year.  Seattle not only finished with a winning record that year, but made the playoffs.  Clearly both CIN and Sea were on the upswing as both were great in 2005 and Sea even made the SB.

 

The 2004 schedule was not a strong group, but it contained teams that ranged from horrendous to on the upswing and even a team which made the SB.  Most impressive about our opponents during the streak was that we simply destroyed the two best CIN ans SEA in their houses.

 

B. As I noted losing PW was a definite downgrade at DT, but again his lost does not explain (or I think make more than a marginal difference in the big picture) our bad 2005 results and inability to stop the run.

 

1. Phat Pat only lined up for 2/3 of the D snaps in 2004,  If his presence made such a huge difference in explaining the results of a 2005 squad which returned the other 10 defenders, then one should have noted at least some difference in performance for the 1/3 of the game PW was not there in 2004.

 

2. If PW was so great, then one would have expected him to make a notable difference at his new gig in MN.  PW played well enough last year, but was not so great that week in and week out we kicked ourselves seeing his outstanding production.

 

3. We sucked not only at early down run-stopping (PW's specialty for the significant but specific use we put him to) but even worse on 3rd down stops which PW played no direct role in.  Perhaps the PW difference here is that a fresher Edwards not required to start would have been there to be a fresh rusher if onlt we kept PW.  However, this argument begins to clearly build a "then if" chain of occurences which seem unlikely to totally explain our run stopping breakdown from the 2nd game on.

 

Missing PW was a factor though there are few signs it was the pivotal or even a huge factor in our record.

 

There are several items which make more sense to me to explain the fact of the 2005 demolition:

 

1. The players felt that the Bills braintrust had given up on winning in 2005-  Bledsoe was not a playoff caliber QB for us if he had been kept in 2005.  However, he was clearly a more productive QB than the young JP was.  I think the team gave it a shot beating a bad Texans team on the road, but it was clear to internal observers that TD had decided to use 2005 has training camp for JP rather than give the players the best chance they had (even if it was a bad chance it was the best we had) tto win now.  As such I think the players quickly began to play for themselves and not for each other and this had a big effect.

 

2.  Opponents had a ton of tape on our D- Ironically, I think keeping 10 of 11 players ended up being a bigger negative than positive for us.  Oppomemt had tons of tape on exactly how players performed in our zone blitz and one clear area of greater weakness to exploit.  Gray did well playcalling for the zone blitz in 2003 after a horrible D performance the year before .  He did well designing the gameplan on his own and making in game adjustments in 2004.  However, he simply needed to change up the D to keep opponents from exploiting its weaknesses in 2005 and did not do this.

 

3. TC works better with older QBs-  Another irony is here that Clements had a lot of success as a QB coach in Pitts helping revive the career of the failed Maddox (and potentially reviving the failed Kordell though the timing of TC hiring may give MM the credit though this context is the one TC learned in under MM as OC in Pitts).  TC also had good production reviving Drew in 04 after a horrendous 03.  Like I or not and admit it or not which those who simply hate Bledsoe may refuse to do, they made tremendous use of what DB could do well (sling the ball like a rocket given time, very good ball handler, a lot of experience to program though he cannot improvise) by taking away his ability to audible, using his ability to run fakes, and even running him on occaision which you must do to stop the blitz even though no one will ever mistake Bledsoe for Elway.  I think part of this may be that TC simplyy could not run an effective O which was geared more toward training the young JP rather than using what a vet QB could do well and minimizing what he did poorly.

 

4. The 2004 players were motivated by the fear of being cut if they did not produce-  I think a big part of the 2004 story which is not talked about much was the cut of Bobby Shaw at WR which coincided with the streak.  Shaw was a good player who had contributed a lot to the Bills in 2003 when Moulds went down to injury and Reed developed the droppsies at #2 WR.  Shaw actually stepped up as the go-to guy at #1 WR when many wondered whether he was even an adequate #3.  he was not adequate at #1 but was passable and he clearly contributed a lot in 03.

 

However, he was well down the depth chart with the acquisition of Evans, hopes for Aiken and even Reed struggling back to contribute.  he was clearly not a cancer in the locker room and was even well liked by many.  Yet, when the Bills had to activate Peters or potentially lose him off the PS, Shaw got the axe even though after game 2 the Bills were on the hook for his entire contract if he sat at home.  What have you done for us lately and all the Bills knew that if you did not contribute on the field, having a big contract and being a nice guy may well not save you.  Every Bill played for their job after this cut.

 

However, though this motivational technique payed off in 2004, particularly when the result was not the playoffs, one can only go to the fear well as a guy in charge judiciously.  You can only drive folks to succeed for a little while and then you have to lead by example and from the front.  TD set an example based on playing for 2006 rather than 2005. His job did not seem to be at risk but all the players have short careers.

 

I think that these are the bigger factors which explain the stinky 05 than looking to the absence of the OK but not great PW or overblowing how weak the opponents were during the win streak.

726806[/snapback]

You clearly have too much time on your hands

[BuffOrange]

For once I agree with the masses.

- Cake schedule in '04.

- Pat Williams + TKO - losing your 2 best players on the front 7 is almost impossible for any team not coached by Bellicheck to overcome.

- Unstable QB play.

 

Each of these three things easily account for a game each, so a 4 game decline is hardly surprising in retrospect.

[Pyrite Gal]

For once I agree with the masses. 

- Cake schedule in '04.

- Pat Williams + TKO - losing your 2 best players on the front 7 is almost impossible for any team not coached by Bellicheck to overcome.

- Unstable QB play.

 

Each of these three things easily account for a game each, so a 4 game decline is hardly surprising in retrospect.

726860[/snapback]

 

In 2004 we faced 5 teams which appeared in the playoffs that year and played a total of 7 games because NE and NYJ both made it.

 

In 2005 we faced 5 teams which appeared in the playoffs that year and played a total of 6 games because only NE made it from the division.

 

During the 6 game winning streak which was pivotal to our having a winning record in 04, the 6 teams included 2 playoff teams, 4 of the 6 Ws were on the road and 2 of the road wins (against a horrible SF team and against a playoff making Sea team) involved cross country travel where we historically had stunk.

 

It is arguable that due to parity in the NFL and the way things happened to fall out with scheduling and injuries that the 04 opponents stunk. However, its hard to argue that the 04 opponents stunk worse than the 05 opponents. In fact a reasonable case can be made that the 04 schedule actually was against tougher opponents than 05.

[ajzepp]

great answer

 

i nominate for best post of the year

726690[/snapback]

 

 

Sorry, but any post that cites the loss of Drew Bledsoe as being a bad thing is crap!

[rastabillz]

Sorry, but any post that cites the loss of Drew Bledsoe as being a bad thing is crap!

726970[/snapback]

 

I nominate this as post of the year.