I'm with you M&M

[Paco]

Hey, the scenery on the way to the sewage plant might look different than a trip somewhere else, but it will still lead to a big heaping pile of s#it.

70837[/snapback]

Mularky has brought a much more effective and understandable offensive scheme to this team. He's allowed his coaches to change players in key positions, do the simple things you never saw from a GW team...like actually run on 3rd and short, and execute some nice offensive schemes that bring running backs across grains with counter blocking by receivers. Hell, he fired a player a quarter of the way into the season. And yes, he HAS put Moulds in at quarterback because it was difficult getting him the ball in that game, and unbeknownst to you, apparently, sometimes you have to get players involved one way or another before they become stagnant for the entire game. In that particular case you didn't notice that that play got Moulds into the game and he caught another three passes after that. It's not like he had Henry throwing a halfback option pick into the endzone.

 

Did we win? No. Are we still 0-4? Absolutely. In fact, MM has already lost more games than GW. But you just see losses and your brain freezes, which just further proves you find it necessary to provide an opinion on every issue regardless of the fact that often times what you have to say also leads us to a big pile of crap.

[JAMIEBUF12]

i already like him!i hope he cuts a few more players.i'd start with lindell next.if you want to play smashmouth football the ingredients are....

 

 

#1strong defense

 

 

#2good punter

 

 

#3good runningbacks/good offensive line

 

 

#4good field goal kicker

 

 

if you can't trust ryan lindell to say kick a 40 yarder when the game is on the line or to put the game to a +touchdown lead late in a game he is useless,and that is how i feel about our kicker useless!

[bills_fan]

I was one of the guys that wanted MM here after doing a little research on him. I think he'll be a very good coach for a very long time in Buffalo, an as ya'll said, it's only 1/4 of the way through his rookie campaign.

 

But look what's he's done: He's gone after a 4th overall draft pick (MW), cut a popular player (Shaw) for what by all accounts is poor practice habits and to send a message, and chewed the everliving stevestojan out of the 'O' last week, who then took their next two possesions in for TDs.

 

He's already doing very well IMO. Too bad his players have let him down in 3 of the 4 games so far...

 

 

 

I opposed the hiring of MM, but I like what I see so far. CD, you and I had some serious discussions that day, but so far I have to say you were right, he looks like the real deal.

[stevestojan]

Mularky has brought a much more effective and understandable offensive scheme to this team.  He's allowed his coaches to change players in key positions, do the simple things you never saw from a GW team...like actually run on 3rd and short, and execute some nice offensive schemes that bring running backs across grains with counter blocking by receivers. Hell, he fired a player a quarter of the way into the season. And yes, he HAS put Moulds in at quarterback because it was difficult getting him the ball in that game, and unbeknownst to you, apparently, sometimes you have to get players involved one way or another before they become stagnant for the entire game. In that particular case you didn't notice that that play got Moulds into the game and he caught another three passes after that. It's not like he had Henry throwing a halfback option pick into the endzone.

 

Did we win? No. Are we still 0-4? Absolutely. In fact, MM has already lost more games than GW. But you just see losses and your brain freezes, which just further proves you find it necessary to provide an opinion on every issue regardless of the fact that often times what you have to say also leads us to a big pile of crap.    

70871[/snapback]

 

 

Your entire post boils down to this: If Henry's option had not been picked last year in the Miami game, GW would look like a genious. TD, and we have control of the game.

 

Putting Moulds in the game at QB just to get him involved? Are you f-cking kidding me? How about THROW THE BALL TO HIM?

 

Paco, you sir, don't know anything about football. Stick to insulting people, it's more your speed.

[Campy]

See, I don't get this.

 

When we played NE, who called a TO in order to call a play that was so f-cking wacky, off-the-wall, and plain old bizzare, when he easily could have called a draw play?

 

Putting us in a position to win? hardly

70853[/snapback]

 

For every call you think was bad, I can tell you why a lack of execution was the culprit, and then tell you about two other plays that won the chess match against the D (good call by TC & MM), but a penalty, missed block, or dropped pass prevented it from being successful (the players screwed the pooch).

 

Remember that long 3rd down run WM had for a first vs NYJ? Fooled everyone, didn't it? It was a great call because (drumroll please)... IT WORKED! Imagine if an LB, S, or CB shot through and tackled WM after a gain of say, 3 yds. The same Mon Morn QBs who praised that "gutsy" call would be telling us all how hard MM is making it for us to win games.

 

Regardless of YOUR thoughts on the actual play I cited above, you and I both know that solid execution (there's that word that hold players accountable again), or a lack thereof, goes a long way in making a called play good or bad.

[Campy]

He was a ho-hum player, but he's a bum as coach. the man brings no fire to the game. He's exciting as watching paint dry.

70866[/snapback]

 

You missed the part where he tore a new arse for the O in the NYJ game, didn't you?

 

FWIW: They went out and scored 2 TDs on their next two possessions after the "paint dried."

[stevestojan]

For every call you think was bad, I can tell you why a lack of execution was the culprit, and then tell you about two other plays that won the chess match against the D (good call by TC & MM), but a penalty, missed block, or dropped pass prevented it from being successful (the players screwed the pooch).

 

Remember that long 3rd down run WM had for a first vs NYJ?  Fooled everyone, didn't it?  It was a great call because (drumroll please)... IT WORKED!  Imagine if an LB, S, or CB shot through and tackled WM after a gain of say, 3 yds.  The same Mon Morn QBs who praised that "gutsy" call would be telling us all how hard MM is making it for us to win games.

 

Regardless of YOUR thoughts on the actual play I cited above, you and I both know that solid execution (there's that word that hold players accountable again), or a lack thereof, goes a long way in making a called play good or bad.

70888[/snapback]

 

Here's the problem with our arguing here. Its that I don't disagree with you. I don't think he is a HORRIBLE coach. But, I dont think he has shown ANYTHING to deserve a thread praising him. Fact is, he is 0-4. When everyone wants to criticize Donahoe, who i happen to think does a good job, the one answer i get over and over is 17-35 (or whatever his exact record is). Mularky isnt the worst, but he hasnt shown anything yet to be really happy about. I can guarentee, if Bill Belichek was our coach, we would have AT LEAST one win this season.

 

So, yes, I do think he has made a few good moves this year, but they dont outweigh the bad, nor do they outweigh the fact that we are 0-4. I havnt written him off yet, but i dont see much improvement from the past, despite an improved team of players.

[Campy]

I opposed the hiring of MM, but I like what I see so far.  CD, you and I had some serious discussions that day, but so far I have to say you were right, he looks like the real deal.

70879[/snapback]

That was a fun debate, but since they hired MM, don't you owe me a beer?

[Campy]

Here's the problem with our arguing here. Its that I don't disagree with you. I don't think he is a HORRIBLE coach. But, I dont think he has shown ANYTHING to deserve a thread praising him. Fact is, he is 0-4. When everyone wants to criticize Donahoe, who i happen to think does a good job, the one answer i get over and over is 17-35 (or whatever his exact record is). Mularky isnt the worst, but he hasnt shown anything yet to be really happy about. I can guarentee, if Bill Belichek was our coach, we would have AT LEAST one win this season.

 

So, yes, I do think he has made a few good moves this year, but they dont outweigh the bad, nor do they outweigh the fact that we are 0-4. I havnt written him off yet, but i dont see much improvement from the past, despite an improved team of players.

70896[/snapback]

Got it

[Paco]

Your entire post boils down to this: If Henry's option had not been picked last year in the Miami game, GW would look like a genious. TD, and we have control of the game. 

 

Putting Moulds in the game at QB just to get him involved? Are you f-cking kidding me? How about THROW THE BALL TO HIM?

 

Paco, you sir, don't know anything about football. Stick to insulting people, it's more your speed.

70884[/snapback]

And you, sir, know nothing of reality. The reality is, TH DID throw a pick at a crucial part of the game that simply called for more ball pounding. It was a stupid call. You could just as easily make the argument that if there was no holding call on Villarial vs the Jags, and if the refs actually made the proper call with TH's score vs. the Raiders, that MM would look like a genius as well. And even THEN you would probably try to take a contrary view.

 

And teams DO find different ways to get receivers into games by getting the ball in their hands at times WHEN...and please try to follow this...YOU CAN'T get the ball to the receiver. Sometimes it's on reverses, and sometimes it's from the shotgun. It wasn't a passing play, it was a running play. It didn't work any better than the TH pick, but it certainly wasn't WORSE! It was designed to get Moulds involved. ANYONE who knows football knows this...except, apparently, yourself.

[Campy]

if you can't trust ryan lindell to say kick a 40 yarder when the game is on the line or to put the game to a +touchdown lead late in a game  he is useless,and that is how i feel about our kicker  useless!

70874[/snapback]

Good point Jamie.

 

Lindell makes it a little too exciting, doesn't he?

 

I hope he can put the inconsistency behind him, I have a feeling we'll be needing him to win one (or two) for us this year.

[bills_fan]

That was a fun debate, but since they hired MM, don't you owe me a beer? 

 

 

I'll be in Baltimore for the Bills game. Driving down from NYC either Sat or early Sun morn (not sure yet). I know you are from around down there. So there ya go!!

[zow2]

i already like him!i hope he cuts a few more players.i'd start with lindell next.if you want to play smashmouth football the ingredients are....

#1strong defense

#2good punter

#3good runningbacks/good offensive line

#4good field goal kicker

if you can't trust ryan lindell to say kick a 40 yarder when the game is on the line or to put the game to a +touchdown lead late in a game  he is useless,and that is how i feel about our kicker  useless!

70874[/snapback]

 

You forgot #5. to be a good smashmouth team, the Bills must be very good at converting 3rd-downs since they see many of them on long drives. Unfortunately, with a statue QB, all the little roll out dump off passes (like Pennington uses) are thrown out the window. Half the damn playbook is thrown out because we have to cater the offense for the most immobile QB in the league.

[RCow]

Oh, I don't expect him to be perfect, but rookie or not, an 0-4 coach is not worthy of any type of praise.

70808[/snapback]

 

Joe Gibbs was 0-5 his first year in Washington. Parcells was 3-12-1 his first year.

 

Bill Belicheck

1991 cle 6 - 10

1992 cle 7 - 9

1993 cle 7 - 9

1994 cle 11- 5

1995 cle 5-11

2000 nwe 5-11

2001 nwe 11- 5