JDG Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Some speculation on whom Mularkey will hire as his new Coordinators. Having just fired our entire defensive staff, I think that Mularkey's best option would be to look at the defensive staff from one of the just-fired Head Coaches - someone who will be looking for a new job because a new guy will be bringing in his own personnel, and who will be able to bring a handfull of asisstants with him. This could include guys like Gunther Cunningham (Chiefs), Dick Jauron (Lions), Larry Marmie (Rams), or a return of Ted Cottrell (Vikings.) Dom Capers will be mentioned, but I find it hard to believe that we would pay him, or that he would want to come to such an unstable situation. If Jim Bates (Packers) becomes available, I'd be very happy with him. Another intriguing guy to me, though, is Rob Ryan (Raiders) - a son of Buddy Ryan, and who also spent time on Belichick's staff in New England, including two Super Bowls; so far, however, he has been retained by the Raiders. Another interesting choice would be former Arizona HC Dave McGinnis, who is currently a position coach in Tennessee. On the offensive side, Mike Mularkey is an offensive guy - so he needs to bring in someone who is going to work with his system. You can't just bring in a Mike Martz, with his completely different offensive philosophy. That's why its so odd to see Mularkey fire Clements, whom he brought with him from Pittsburgh. Although Mularkey doesn't know him, Bruce Arians is a former OC for Cleveland, and became WR coach in Pittsburgh after Mularkey left - so at least Arians was presumably familiarizing himsellf with the Steelers' offense during that time frame. Another guy Pittsburgh brought in after Mularkey left is Mark Whipple, who was a successful I-AA HC. Another possibility might be Chris Palmer, who was fired by the Texans and Dom Capers in September. If Mularkey wants to stay in-house, maybe Tyke Tolbert gets the nod. Further afield, there may be some U of Florida connections I haven't come up with. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Some speculation on whom Mularkey will hire as his new Coordinators. Having just fired our entire defensive staff, I think that Mularkey's best option would be to look at the defensive staff from one of the just-fired Head Coaches - someone who will be looking for a new job because a new guy will be bringing in his own personnel, and who will be able to bring a handfull of asisstants with him. This could include guys like Gunther Cunningham (Chiefs), Dick Jauron (Lions), Larry Marmie (Rams), or a return of Ted Cottrell (Vikings.) Dom Capers will be mentioned, but I find it hard to believe that we would pay him, or that he would want to come to such an unstable situation. If Jim Bates (Packers) becomes available, I'd be very happy with him. Another intriguing guy to me, though, is Rob Ryan (Raiders) - a son of Buddy Ryan, and who also spent time on Belichick's staff in New England, including two Super Bowls; so far, however, he has been retained by the Raiders. Another interesting choice would be former Arizona HC Dave McGinnis, who is currently a position coach in Tennessee. On the offensive side, Mike Mularkey is an offensive guy - so he needs to bring in someone who is going to work with his system. You can't just bring in a Mike Martz, with his completely different offensive philosophy. That's why its so odd to see Mularkey fire Clements, whom he brought with him from Pittsburgh. Although Mularkey doesn't know him, Bruce Arians is a former OC for Cleveland, and became WR coach in Pittsburgh after Mularkey left - so at least Arians was presumably familiarizing himsellf with the Steelers' offense during that time frame. Another guy Pittsburgh brought in after Mularkey left is Mark Whipple, who was a successful I-AA HC. Another possibility might be Chris Palmer, who was fired by the Texans and Dom Capers in September. If Mularkey wants to stay in-house, maybe Tyke Tolbert gets the nod. Further afield, there may be some U of Florida connections I haven't come up with. JDG 559816[/snapback] great, great post, and i was just thinking about the same thing. i love bates, and think he would be great for the bills. also, on offense, the pittsburgh guys sound intriguing. as for palmer, doesn't he sort of fall in the same category as martz (i.e., a completely different philosophy)? he's also had a very bad run of late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 On the offensive side, Mike Mularkey is an offensive guy - so he needs to bring in someone who is going to work with his system. 559816[/snapback] His System produced the worst offense in Bills history. He needs someone to come in with their own playbook and burn his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lofton80 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Hunches: Would not be a surprise to see them take a run at Al Saunders assuming he does not get a HC job. He is seasoned which I believe Marv will encourage. Also, his offense is run based and wide open at same time. Too much to hope for I guess. Others: Charlie Joiner or James Lofton would not shock me as they are part of Marv's past and currently coaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo mike2 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Hunches: Would not be a surprise to see them take a run at Al Saunders assuming he does not get a HC job. He is seasoned which I believe Marv will encourage. Also, his offense is run based and wide open at same time. Too much to hope for I guess. Others: Charlie Joiner or James Lofton would not shock me as they are part of Marv's past and currently coaching. 559867[/snapback] I like Al Saunders- the Chiefs would be nuts to let him walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Hunches: Would not be a surprise to see them take a run at Al Saunders assuming he does not get a HC job. He is seasoned which I believe Marv will encourage. Also, his offense is run based and wide open at same time. Too much to hope for I guess. Others: Charlie Joiner or James Lofton would not shock me as they are part of Marv's past and currently coaching. 559867[/snapback] Sharp thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester43 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Although Mularkey doesn't know him, Bruce Arians is a former OC for Cleveland, and became WR coach in Pittsburgh after Mularkey left - so at least Arians was presumably familiarizing himsellf with the Steelers' offense during that time frame. 559816[/snapback] during the 80's, arians had TWO winning season at temple. in my mind(that of a weary owl alum) that makes him a friggin genius and we should give him whatever he wants to come here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted January 9, 2006 Author Share Posted January 9, 2006 His System produced the worst offense in Bills history. He needs someone to come in with their own playbook and burn his. 559857[/snapback] Nobody wanted Mularkey gone more than I - but there is zero chance of that. If you are bringing in a good DC to run the defense, and a good OC to run the offense - why again did you keep Mularkey around? The decision has clearly been made to stick with Mularkey, and that means sticking with his offensive philosophy. As for the posters who mentioned Al Saunders, Herman Edwards is a defensive guy, and I'd be shocked if he didn't retain Saunders. As for Marv possibly picking Lofton or Joiner, while interesting - it would leave me deeply troubled about the future and direction of the team, as such a move would completely undermine Mularkey's authority. In short, Mularkey needs to get an OC who will be viewed as a "Mularkey guy" in order to retain some semblance of authority as he attempts to succeed as a semi-lame duck under the new management. Indeed, management has already fired all of Mularkey's assistants (or has at minimum, created the appearance of doing so), if they hire the new ones too - then Mularkey is a true lame duck who is only here because Donahoe gave him a five-year contract and Ralph Wilson was too cheap to fire him. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hootie1 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Nobody wanted Mularkey gone more than I - but there is zero chance of that. If you are bringing in a good DC to run the defense, and a good OC to run the offense - why again did you keep Mularkey around? The decision has clearly been made to stick with Mularkey, and that means sticking with his offensive philosophy. As for the posters who mentioned Al Saunders, Herman Edwards is a defensive guy, and I'd be shocked if he didn't retain Saunders. As for Marv possibly picking Lofton or Joiner, while interesting - it would leave me deeply troubled about the future and direction of the team, as such a move would completely undermine Mularkey's authority. In short, Mularkey needs to get an OC who will be viewed as a "Mularkey guy" in order to retain some semblance of authority as he attempts to succeed as a semi-lame duck under the new management. Indeed, management has already fired all of Mularkey's assistants (or has at minimum, created the appearance of doing so), if they hire the new ones too - then Mularkey is a true lame duck who is only here because Donahoe gave him a five-year contract and Ralph Wilson was too cheap to fire him. JDG 559885[/snapback] Sam wyche for OC. Already here, so some continuity. Friend of Mularkey, so he's a "Mularkey guy." Health prohibits him being head coach, so no gunning for MMs job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Dom Capers will be mentioned, but I find it hard to believe that we would pay him, or that he would want to come to such an unstable situation. 559816[/snapback] This is precisely the situation that a coordinator who has aspirations for HC would love, as it's a win win. If the Bills continue to suck, then it's not the coordinator's fault, since it's obvious that Mularkey is over his head, and the HC job goes to the hot shot assistant (as per Wilson's past history). If the Bills improve, then it's obviously done with the addition of the hot-shot assistant, who'll be able to land a HC spot elsewhere in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Nobody wanted Mularkey gone more than I - but there is zero chance of that. If you are bringing in a good DC to run the defense, and a good OC to run the offense - why again did you keep Mularkey around? The decision has clearly been made to stick with Mularkey, and that means sticking with his offensive philosophy. As for the posters who mentioned Al Saunders, Herman Edwards is a defensive guy, and I'd be shocked if he didn't retain Saunders. As for Marv possibly picking Lofton or Joiner, while interesting - it would leave me deeply troubled about the future and direction of the team, as such a move would completely undermine Mularkey's authority. In short, Mularkey needs to get an OC who will be viewed as a "Mularkey guy" in order to retain some semblance of authority as he attempts to succeed as a semi-lame duck under the new management. Indeed, management has already fired all of Mularkey's assistants (or has at minimum, created the appearance of doing so), if they hire the new ones too - then Mularkey is a true lame duck who is only here because Donahoe gave him a five-year contract and Ralph Wilson was too cheap to fire him. JDG 559885[/snapback] Marv was a ST's coach who hired a good ST's coach. Ted Marchibroda ran the Offense. Corey/Wade ran the D. Marv organized the team and worked the refs on Sunday. He was neither an O or D specialist. Mularkey is here because his salary is on par with most Asst. coaches. In other words, a bargain. He should delegate like Marv and burn his playbook. I hate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Marv was a ST's coach who hired a good ST's coach. Ted Marchibroda ran the Offense. Corey/Wade ran the D. Marv organized the team and worked the refs on Sunday. He was neither an O or D specialist. Mularkey is here because his salary is on par with most Asst. coaches. In other words, a bargain. He should delegate like Marv and burn his playbook. I hate it. 559925[/snapback] it's not his playbook that's the problem. it's the talent (i.e, the lack thereof) on the offensive line and at the TE position. solve that, and he'll look a lot smarter than he does now. successfully replace teague and anderson, teach peters how to run block (if he can't, move him elsewhere), and infuse enough talent so that gandy can be a swingman/6th man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mile High Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 it's not his playbook that's the problem. it's the talent (i.e, the lack thereof) on the offensive line and at the TE position. solve that, and he'll look a lot smarter than he does now. successfully replace teague and anderson, teach peters how to run block (if he can't, move him elsewhere), and infuse enough talent so that gandy can be a swingman/6th man. 559931[/snapback] That is pretty much it if they can accomplish this in the offseason with quality guys then the O will improve dramatically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hootie1 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Marv was a ST's coach who hired a good ST's coach. Ted Marchibroda ran the Offense. Corey/Wade ran the D. Marv organized the team and worked the refs on Sunday. He was neither an O or D specialist. Mularkey is here because his salary is on par with most Asst. coaches. In other words, a bargain. He should delegate like Marv and burn his playbook. I hate it. 559925[/snapback] Did you watch the Steelers last night? After the successful gadget play, one of the anchors commented that gadget plays work when everything else is working well too. And it reminded me that in 2004, some of the gadget plays we ran looked pretty good. But if you can't run, and you can't pass, gadget plays just come off looking like desperation moves, and we all became disenchanted in 2005. How much better could MMs offense look, gadget plays and all, if the O-line could block? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 it's not his playbook that's the problem. it's the talent (i.e, the lack thereof) on the offensive line and at the TE position. solve that, and he'll look a lot smarter than he does now. successfully replace teague and anderson, teach peters how to run block (if he can't, move him elsewhere), and infuse enough talent so that gandy can be a swingman/6th man. 559931[/snapback] You'd like my draft thoughts in the college forum. The passing and trick plays Mularkey loves can only work if you make the opposition respect the run first, as Darin and others emphasized in another thread regarding the Steelers success with such calls. Nobody bites on the play action when you can't run the ball with consistency. Granted, Mularkey is handcuffed with the OL and TE talent he currently has. His past in Pittsburgh seems to indicate that when he had a healthy Bettis, he would indeed run. Getting a OC who shows this philosophy in his resume would do wonders to calm the masses. Wyche thinks like that but may have too many health concerns to accept the job. Time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted January 9, 2006 Author Share Posted January 9, 2006 And it should be pointed out that Pittsburgh called a HB Pass which failed, and called an *incredibly* risky WR-directsnap/flea-flicker on 3rd and 2 for which almost any NFL HC would have been positively skewered had it not worked. If "creativity" involves a WR-directsnap/flea-flicker on 3rd and 2, I don't want any part of it. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyMannn Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Carolina's offense looked good Sunday, they could really POUND the ball. Dan Henning??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 And it should be pointed out that Pittsburgh called a HB Pass which failed, and called an *incredibly* risky WR-directsnap/flea-flicker on 3rd and 2 for which almost any NFL HC would have been positively skewered had it not worked. If "creativity" involves a WR-directsnap/flea-flicker on 3rd and 2, I don't want any part of it. JDG 559966[/snapback] they've been doing that for 5 years going without fail (since mularkey became OC there), and their record since then is 55-24-1. you can do it if other teams respect your running game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sound_n_Fury Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 If "creativity" involves a WR-directsnap/flea-flicker on 3rd and 2, I don't want any part of it. 559966[/snapback] Except when they score TDs.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 it's not his playbook that's the problem. it's the talent (i.e, the lack thereof) on the offensive line and at the TE position. solve that, and he'll look a lot smarter than he does now. successfully replace teague and anderson, teach peters how to run block (if he can't, move him elsewhere), and infuse enough talent so that gandy can be a swingman/6th man. 559931[/snapback] It's cleary a combination of the two. The problem with the playbook is it seems to the ignore the weaknesses in the talent. When things are rough and talent weak the answer is NOT to get trickier and more complicated is it? It seems this staff never got back-to-basics and tried to do simple things correctly FIRST. This team had a chance to gel if the playcalling was more straight-forward and the coaches put their players in a position to succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts