Fake-Fat Sunny Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 The Bills need to make a big change in the front office if they are going to have a reasonable chance at making big changes in next year's W/L. I think the chances are far more likely that they will return at least to thw winning record that this virtually same team (minus Bledsoe was the biggest change and I think that it was more of a minus the way it was handled than in on field performance) achieved just last year. There is far from a gurantee that this TD crew will be able to embody the changes necessary so that the players believe they can improve (I think this was the bad element this year in that the players did not perform in 2005 at even their 2004 levels because they believed that the front office and TD in particular had given up on this season with winning as his first priority and instead he was using this season mostly as a training camp for JP and if the D carried him then great). Modrak will need to show that he is committed to winning now either by putting his stamp on the team or by turning it over to MM for real and MM somehow signaling that TD's departure liberates him to win now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 I think i stated this in another thread, but i'm willing to write off the 2005 season for MM, but at the same time, i'm not willing to give the guy an extra inch in 2006. I think i posted that, i don't know... it was a long night of posting stuff and watching that PSU game. Anyhow, for all we know, MM is a great coach... Hell, the guy still turned around a team that was 0-4 into a team that was one bad QB and a missed 28 yard field goal away from the playoffs last year. For all we know, which honestly isn't much, MM was hamstrung by TD. Sure, its his call to have fired rusty jones, to hire clements and to keep gray, but this was TD's team, like it or not. With Levy, sam wyche, and a reinvigorated Ralph Wilson standing behind him, MM will have no choice but to coach a great football game. The big question mark is whom was really responsible for the putrid drafting the last few years. If it was TD and modrak was the one being shut out, then we might be ok. If it was Modrak who was in charge while TD was the one to come up with the spin and setting up the hot dog stands at st. john fisher, then we're screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck.....you know that old addage......i am of the belief (and some may think i'm really out on a limb) that MM either does not have what it takes to be a HC or is not ready to be one........ think he may not have what it takes considering the handling of JP, along with bench start decisions of JP....... not to mention veteran frustration and peer pressure tactics seemed to work on him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Interesting blurb on Whisehunt which shows some insight to Mularkey's philosophy: Although Mullarkey continually gave lip service to playing smash mouth, he never produced either here or previously at Pittsburgh. Still baffles the mind why Teflon gave MM a 5 year contract to a aguy that was about to be fired by Pittsburgh for his truly "offensive" performance as OC. KEN WHISENHUNT, offensive coordinator, Pittsburgh. "He's what I call a defensive offensive coordinator," said one general manager. "He'll run the ball and rely on his defense." That's what's happened in two years on the job in Steelers, where Whisenhunt took the 31st-ranked rushing offense and turned it into the league's second-ranked unit overnight. OK, so it helps when you have Jerome Bettis in the huddle. But Bettis was there in 2003, too. All I know is that when Bill Cowher made Whisenhunt his coordinator in 2004 he put him on notice that he wanted to return to what the Steelers do best, which was running the ball. It was up to Whisenhunt to provide a solution. Well, he did, and the results speak for themselves -- not only were the Steelers fifth in rushing this season; they're 26-6 in regular-season play with Whisenhunt as a coordinator. Like Rivera, he's been on the job only two years, but don't let that fool you. He knows what he's doing, and people noticed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 MM either does not have what it takes to be a HC or is not ready to be one........ 551949[/snapback] i am in the "he is not ready" camp. imo he would have been a guy that could have used 3 years of head coaching an NFL Europe team. Or maybe a Division I team. Although I think the experience in NFL Europe would have been much better. there is nothing better then real game experience with managing the clock, and play selection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Although Mullarkey continually gave lip service to playing smash mouth, he never produced either here or previously at Pittsburgh. Yeah, except for 2001 when he ran the NFL's #1 offense which was also the NFL's #1 rushing offense. And except for 2002 when he ran the NFL's #5 offense which was also one of the NFL's Top10 rushing offenses. And his "lip service" led to the Bills being in the Top10 in rushing attempts in 2004, which would have been even higher if he had a QB who ever ran the ball. But don't let any of that stop you from yet another inaccurate moronic rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Yeah, except for 2001 when he ran the NFL's #1 offense which was also the NFL's #1 rushing offense. And except for 2002 when he ran the NFL's #5 offense which was also one of the NFL's Top10 rushing offenses. And his "lip service" led to the Bills being in the Top10 in rushing attempts in 2004, which would have been even higher if he had a QB who ever ran the ball. But don't let any of that stop you from yet another inaccurate moronic rant. 551984[/snapback] generating yards by trickery is not the same as committing to the run and grinding it out on a consistent basis. He sure didn't commit to the run with a rookie QB who needed the support, but why argue with reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 generating yards by trickery is not the same as committing to the run and grinding it out on a consistent basis. In 3 of his 5 years as a HC or OC, his teams have been at or near the top of the league in rushing attempts. But why argue with reality when instead you can continue to make yourself look like an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts