dave mcbride Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 didn't you just know that sullivan would focus on the truly inconseqeuntial sails/wind comment? on the other hand, i thought that kilgore made a pretty good case for big mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omar Little Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Kilgore is an idiot. How can anyone respect him or his opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2003Contenders Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 The problem with Sullivan is that he has no credibility. He reminds me of a message board poster on a crusade that ultimately gets banned. He simply hates the front office and always has -- so almost every article is slanted that way. Even when he does make a valid point it is hard to give him much credit for it -- kinda like the boy who cried wolf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbyte Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 So does the coach on WGR. What has the font office done to impress anybody? The draft of MaGhee threw GW under the bus. FA signings for a lot of "ME" FIRST players" Milloy always talking about money and not Superbowls The drafting of WRs and RBs instead of OL /DL. The great coaching choices? TD reminds me of Bobby Grier of NE. WELL I GOT THE TALENT BUT THE COACH COULD NOT DEVELOP THEM He had a ton of draft picks but because he knew better than anyone he wasted them. Parcells said he did not mind giving draft picks to NE because he knew the Grier would waste them. EX picking Cris Canty over Sam Madison The NE coaches wanted Madison but he knew better. Look where Houstan is now that he is been there for 4 years TD is like Grier " I know what is best for the Bills, because I am GREAT " Just look at the Bills record, Who could of done better? I got us out of salary cap jail and fooled thousands of fans into thinking we were a Super Bowl contender How can you crictize the great and powerfull TD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Completely disagree that Kilgore made a good case for Mularkey (sorry, but "Big Mike" is Williams, not Mularkey): 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. 1) I don't know that Mularkey has the respect of the players, from Sam Adams to Eric Moulds to McGahee, I've seen a lot of mismanaged situations. 2) Mularkey *clearly* does not believe in a power running game. How many times this year have we seen a pass or a FB on the goal line? And how is it that McGahee has had 17 carries over the past two weeks combined??? 3) I also question Mularkey's offensive mind. Cowher and Whisenhunt seems to have picked up in Pittsburgh right where Mularkey left off. Instead, we seem to have gotten a lot of trick plays that never seem to work, and one of the most futile offenses in the country. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Kilgore is an idiot. How can anyone respect him or his opinion? 538037[/snapback] I don't know who Kilgore is, but are you sure you didn't mean Sullivan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Completely disagree that Kilgore made a good case for Mularkey (sorry, but "Big Mike" is Williams, not Mularkey):1) I don't know that Mularkey has the respect of the players, from Sam Adams to Eric Moulds to McGahee, I've seen a lot of mismanaged situations. 2) Mularkey *clearly* does not believe in a power running game. How many times this year have we seen a pass or a FB on the goal line? And how is it that McGahee has had 17 carries over the past two weeks combined??? 3) I also question Mularkey's offensive mind. Cowher and Whisenhunt seems to have picked up in Pittsburgh right where Mularkey left off. Instead, we seem to have gotten a lot of trick plays that never seem to work, and one of the most futile offenses in the country. JDG 538223[/snapback] OK- everyone here sees the flaws in the offensive line- is Mularkey supposed to play dumb, and call plays as iff he has the Hogs? Wanting to go with the power running game is one thing- trying to go with it with inadequate personnel os another Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 OK- everyone here sees the flaws in the offensive line-538246[/snapback] if we all see it how come TD doesn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 OK- everyone here sees the flaws in the offensive line- is Mularkey supposed to play dumb, and call plays as iff he has the Hogs? Wanting to go with the power running game is one thing- trying to go with it with inadequate personnel os another 538246[/snapback] Big Mike has been feeding the media and fans a bunch of Mullarkey about his desire to run a power offense. He has continually proven he would rather run a finesse system which bails on the run as soon as his scripted plays run out. Teflon Tom and MM both were thrown out of Pittsburgh because of their refusal to build and operate a smash mouth football team. You get a lot of lip service to smash mouth ideals that Bills fans embrace, but drafting midget receivers and using trick plays and ignoring the run are teh actions that speak louder than words. Ed Kilgore must not have watched too many games over the Mullarkey era to draw those conclusions. But at least "Mularkey wants his team to be mentally tougher, one of the reasons Donahoe decided Gregg Williams had to go." Too bad, as HC, he had no input into making it happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 OK- everyone here sees the flaws in the offensive line- is Mularkey supposed to play dumb, and call plays as iff he has the Hogs? Wanting to go with the power running game is one thing- trying to go with it with inadequate personnel os another 538246[/snapback] I think that our offensive line does better in run blocking than in pass-blocking. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye Eric Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 didn't you just know that sullivan would focus on the truly inconseqeuntial sails/wind comment? 537885[/snapback] Since none of us were there for the interview, there is the possibility that the Sullivan switched the sail/winds phrase around himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerme1 Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 I don't know who Kilgore is, but are you sure you didn't mean Sullivan? 538244[/snapback] Where are you??? Kilgore is a long time, kiss ass, apologist that belongs in a market like ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Since none of us were there for the interview, there is the possibility that the Sullivan switched the sail/winds phrase around himself. 538276[/snapback] ...except that he's not the only one who wrote about it. And unlike Sullivan, Chuck Pollock actually covered the presser where Bullough first uttered that phrase. OTH: Mularkey’s malaprop a reminder of bad old days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habes1280 Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Since none of us were there for the interview, there is the possibility that the Sullivan switched the sail/winds phrase around himself. 538276[/snapback] That wasn't an interview, it was from his press conference after Saturday's game. You can find it on their homepage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pass the Pipe Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 The problem with Sullivan is that he has no credibility. He reminds me of a message board poster on a crusade that ultimately gets banned. He simply hates the front office and always has -- so almost every article is slanted that way. Even when he does make a valid point it is hard to give him much credit for it -- kinda like the boy who cried wolf. 538057[/snapback] Cried wolf? The boy has been eaten by the wolf along time ago! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 I think that our offensive line does better in run blocking than in pass-blocking. JDG 538269[/snapback] Is better good enough- is it consistent enough? I don't buy that he runs gadget plays just to run them. You may not think he is Vince Lombardi, but he's not a complete moron. I think he wants a power offense, but knows that we dont have the line for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 I think that our offensive line does better in run blocking than in pass-blocking. JDG 538269[/snapback] Have they really been better at running after MW got hurt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Have they really been better at running after MW got hurt? 538695[/snapback] A fascinating question..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olaf Fub Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 I thought it was goofy that Sullivan made such a big deal about a minor slip up in a press conference. Who cares what they say in them. All players, coaches in all leagues just give "Bull Duhram" answers anyway. It's what Mularkey does on the field and the record of the team that people care about. That's why fans are disappointed in him. (If the Bills were 12-4, Mularkey could pass gas in one like Bullough did and I'd think he was the greatest coach alive. ) I think the similarity between Mularkey and Bullough is that their teams tried (or are trying) to get them fired. I've heard Jim Kelly talk about the 86 season plus Fred Smerlas talks about getting Bullough fired in his book, By a Nose. The play of the 2005 team speaks for itself, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 OK- everyone here sees the flaws in the offensive line- is Mularkey supposed to play dumb, and call plays as iff he has the Hogs? 538246[/snapback] Nope...but he is supposed to Coach them and make them better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 1) I don't know that Mularkey has the respect of the players, from Sam Adams to Eric Moulds to McGahee, I've seen a lot of mismanaged situations. 2) Mularkey *clearly* does not believe in a power running game. How many times this year have we seen a pass or a FB on the goal line? And how is it that McGahee has had 17 carries over the past two weeks combined??? 538223[/snapback] Word I hear, is that the players by and large do, in fact, like Mularkey. Listen to London Fletcher's PC after the last New England game. Paraphrasing, (but not much) "Nobody in this locker room wants to see a coaching change." Eric Moulds (possibly a PR move on his part) expressed the utmost respect for Mularkey, after returning from his suspension. As far as MM and the running game, it is puzzling. Time and again, he and TD have described the Bills as a "power running" team. Yet, we all watch the games, and what do the Bills do in most clutch situations? Attempt to execute a pass play. I have drawn the conclusion that MM knows that the Bills cannot run the ball when they need to. His play calling has proved that they can't really pass the ball when they need to either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 didn't you just know that sullivan would focus on the truly inconseqeuntial sails/wind comment? on the other hand, i thought that kilgore made a pretty good case for big mike. 537885[/snapback] i agree---sails/wind big f'ing deal. stupid/unfunny/uninteresting column. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts