Bowl Winner Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I personally like Mike Mularkey. Sure he had trouble calling the offensive plays, which is supposed to be done by the OC, but I think overall the guys a good coach and a good man. I agree that Clements was doing a poor job and need to go, but I also wanted Gray gone. Dick Lebeau was the reason the defense was doing so well and not Gray. That really showed this year. Maybe that change will be made too. For continuity's sake I'm glad Mularkey is coming back. I don't want to spend another 5 years rebuilding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I personally like Mike Mularkey. Sure he had trouble calling the offensive plays, which is supposed to be done by the OC, but I think overall the guys a good coach and a good man. I agree that Clements was doing a poor job and need to go, but I also wanted Gray gone. Dick Lebeau was the reason the defense was doing so well and not Gray. That really showed this year. Maybe that change will be made too. For continuity's sake I'm glad Mularkey is coming back. I don't want to spend another 5 years rebuilding. 554954[/snapback] We'll see how much you like MM after 2006... Continuity means nothing if the right pieces are not in place...I have serious doubts about Mularkey's abilities as a HC...Personally, after some of the things I read yesterday (specifically SDS's Post about TD and what he was hearing through the grapevine), this situation reaks of RW not wanting to eat the $3 million for MM and setting up the Organization the only way he could to assure MM would stay so that he did not have to eat that Contract...But I could be wrong... What I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong about is the fact that there are better HC's available than MM, and better GM prospects available than Marv...I fear at this time next year the uproar concerning the Bills is going to make the past few weeks seem mild in comparison... Hope I'm wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaroni Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I wanted to like MM ...... I really did. But what has soured me on him is his seeming inability to "handle" the veteran players (and maybe coaches) to form a team with personality. Without coming down on either side to argue who was "right" in the Adams, Williams, Moulds, (and maybe Clements) fiascos, I think they were handled poorly. The reasoning I'm including Clements in this mix is that I'm not really convinced that he was relieved of his OC duties because of poor play calling ...... the only "evidence" I can offer is that the type of plays being called did not change significantly once MM took over the duties. My impression (and keep in mind it's only my impression) is that MM is an inexperianced head coach ...... making mistakes (as any inexperianced coach/player will do), but his ego will not allow him to accept any "input". An OC disagrees with the offensive gameplan ......... he's relieved of his duties. A probowl DT disagrees with the way he's being used ...... inactivate him. A probowl WR says the playcalling sucks ...... suspend him. Now I agree it's the job of a head coach to basicly impose HIS will on the team .... however I think there are less "heavy handed" and less "disruptive" ways to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seq004 Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 He does handle veterans poorly it seems. The Adams and Moulds situation were handled bad and I think players began to doubt is ability also. I just hope Marv can help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey D Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 He does handle veterans poorly it seems. The Adams and Moulds situation were handled bad and I think players began to doubt is ability also. I just hope Marv can help 554997[/snapback] How do you know who was handling what..what direction was MM getting from TD. Perhaps none, perhaps TD was ordering MM what to do. How do you know? Quotes from the players have more or less been quite supportive of MM. It could be PR, but most of it seemed genuine, and not required. So we will see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluv Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Don't fall for the trap look at your eyes. If TD must go then MM has to go as he has bumbled in every aspect of the game this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Don't fall for the trap look at your eyes. If TD must go then MM has to go as he has bumbled in every aspect of the game this year. 555013[/snapback] I do think it's laughable that many feel TD's biggest mistakes were his Head Coaching hires, yet TD is gone and his 2nd poor hire remains... What a joke... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I think Mularkey had a terrible season coaching, without question. And could have been fired for it. But it seems to me he handled the Moulds situation as well as he possibly could. Moulds was clearly the bad guy and yet Mularkey protected him from being scrutinized in the press. Mularkey sat on his sword for his player that screwed him, for all intents and purposes. He suspended him, rightfully, for one game. Took ALL of the heat, never publicly criticized Moulds whatsoever, and then patched things up in the locker room so much that Moulds now wants to return if he can. It was only the bloodthirsty press and the fans (wrongly IMO) saying Moulds was such a good guy and how could you do this to our hero that made Mularkey's silence and stance look foolish. In retrospect, as Moulds and no one around him including his personal advisor, ever denied any of Mort's claims that he took himself out of the game, wouldn't go back in when first told, never mentioned to the trainer any injury during or after the game (which the trainer confirmed), sat in his locker with headphones on during halftime and said I don't have to listen to my coaches. He handled the Moulds situation very well, under terrible circumstances, not of his doing. Unless you want to call bad-playing the cause of Moulds' implosion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 He does handle veterans poorly it seems. The Adams and Moulds situation were handled bad and I think players began to doubt is ability also. I just hope Marv can help 554997[/snapback] Comments made about Mularkey by vets like Troy Vincent fly in the face of that assertion. I think we as fans assume much too much, without knowing what really happens behind the scenes. Case in point -- it seems to be leaking out now that Donahoe was much more of a control freak and coach wannabe than he let on to the public. If Mularkey's hands were tied much of the time and he could not publicly lay blame on his boss, some of his actions that looked strange or indecisive to us may have not really been his fault. I'm only speculating, but with Marv joining the organization I'm willing to give Mularkey the benefit of the doubt and see what happens in '06. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I don't fault MM for the Moulds situation. He was hung out to dry and Ralph had to come in and deal with it. Hopefully that was one of the things they ironed out over the last few days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingant Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Comments made about Mularkey by vets like Troy Vincent fly in the face of that assertion. I think we as fans assume much too much, without knowing what really happens behind the scenes. Case in point -- it seems to be leaking out now that Donahoe was much more of a control freak and coach wannabe than he let on to the public. If Mularkey's hands were tied much of the time and he could not publicly lay blame on his boss, some of his actions that looked strange or indecisive to us may have not really been his fault. I'm only speculating, but with Marv joining the organization I'm willing to give Mularkey the benefit of the doubt and see what happens in '06. 555030[/snapback] That's what I'm thinking also. Maybe the problem was TD and now MM will be able to coach and handle the team the way he wants to, and not the way TD wants to. Also, if everyone thinks Buffalso is the joke of the NFL, what decent coach would want to come here when there are a half dozen other vancancies? I say that keeping MM is the right thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonprophet Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I wanted to like MM ...... I really did. The reasoning I'm including Clements in this mix is that I'm not really convinced that he was relieved of his OC duties because of poor play calling ...... the only "evidence" I can offer is that the type of plays being called did not change significantly once MM took over the duties. 554990[/snapback] I don't think that Clements was relieved because of the playcalling for, as you said, it didn't change much once Mularkey took over. The problem with the offense isn't playcalling, it's the offensive line. When the line's performance is inconsistent, the same play will only work sporadically against similar defensive fronts. Project this phenomena to cover the entire playbook and you can see how it would drive an offensive coordinator crazy as he desperately tries to find something, anything, that will gain some yards. Mularkey could see that Clements was struggling and, like any good supervisor, he took over. Unfortunately, he couldn't find any answers either but since someone has to be the scapegoat, Clements gets canned. Donahoe was let go, I think, because he failed to significantly improve the offensive line which was a problem for years prior to his tenure in Buffalo. Even the best running backs and wide receivers look average at best when playing behind a line that can't consistently open holes in the running game nor slow down rushers in the passing game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I LIKE the lady who does my dry cleaning. Idon't want her coaching the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaroni Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Donahoe was let go, I think, because he failed to significantly improve the offensive line which was a problem for years prior to his tenure in Buffalo. Even the best running backs and wide receivers look average at best when playing behind a line that can't consistently open holes in the running game nor slow down rushers in the passing game. 555121[/snapback] That's what has me scratching my head ........ I'm not near as astute as I'd like to picture myself ...... I am a fan ..... and that is the entire depth of my football knowledge. BUT, even I've known our line has stunk the last few years. TD ...... right or wrong ..... astute football mind or not ..... he IS well respected in football, he has made his living in the NFL for a few years now, he is most certianly a heck of a lot more knowledgable of the REAL talent level, injury status, etc of the Bills than I. Why hasn't he recognized the lines stunk .... why in five years couldn't he improve the piss poor line .......... it just baffels me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffalOhio Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I don't think that Clements was relieved because of the playcalling for, as you said, it didn't change much once Mularkey took over. The problem with the offense isn't playcalling, it's the offensive line. When the line's performance is inconsistent, the same play will only work sporadically against similar defensive fronts. Project this phenomena to cover the entire playbook and you can see how it would drive an offensive coordinator crazy as he desperately tries to find something, anything, that will gain some yards. Mularkey could see that Clements was struggling and, like any good supervisor, he took over. Unfortunately, he couldn't find any answers either but since someone has to be the scapegoat, Clements gets canned. Donahoe was let go, I think, because he failed to significantly improve the offensive line which was a problem for years prior to his tenure in Buffalo. Even the best running backs and wide receivers look average at best when playing behind a line that can't consistently open holes in the running game nor slow down rushers in the passing game. 555121[/snapback] DING DING DING DING DING. We have a winner. Johnny, tell the smart fellow about his prize pack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts