Jump to content

Mike Mularkey


atljbo
 Share

Recommended Posts

I went back and looked at Mike Mularkey stats as a OC.

2001

Hines Ward: 1003 receiving yards

Plaxico Burress: 1008 receiving yards

Jerome Bettis: 1072 rushing yards

2002

Hines Ward: 1329 receiving yards

Plaxico Burress: 1325 receiving yards

2 RB's rushed for over 700 yards each

2003

Hines Ward: 1163 receiving yards

Plaxico Burress: 860 receiving yards

The 2 problems i see.

1. Let Matt Ryan be the QB we know he can be... Everybody points out that we were in so many close games... Well all those games were not suppose to be close games... Matt Ryan would have a great game.. 2 or 3 TD's in the 1st half... but then we would go back to the conservative gameplan instead of stepping on a teams throat.

2. More weapons.... Michael Jenkins is a decent #2... But he is not a great #2 that we need... He's not the aggressive playmaker WR that we need.... Plaxico Burress was that... We also need a change of pace back.... Snelling has done a great job for us but its a couple of game breaking plays a faster back could make for us.

Jimmy Johnson said it best

Fox's Jimmy Johnson offered the most insightful explanation in predicting why the Packers would beat the Falcons. He said running the ball and playing good defense translates to a lot of wins in the regular season, as it did for Atlanta, but when the talent on the teams is comparable in the postseason, explosive plays often are the determining factor. And Johnson noted that the Packers led the league in long gains, and the Falcons tied Carolina for the fewest

I just think Coach Mularkey has to tweek somethings in his scheme...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey atljbo, it's been 3 years... how long will it take for Mularkey to realize that he needs to open the playbook up... or even show some type of creativity in his playcalling???

I agree...this is ludacris! we had golden opportunity....with solid team with good health & we simply blew it in all phases.

I call his play calling very "defensive" & "safe" .....this HAS to change. That does not mean that he's a bad OC....that's just his style.

To take it to the next level .......I dont think he has any "added-value" to the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a new breed of defensive players, and defensive coordinators now then their was back in 2001..They have more exotic formations and blitzes and schemes to stop the kind of stuff that may be caused mularkey to have so much success in those years. If that was the case, then why didnt he have that much success in buffalo as a head coach???Im sure he has some say so in the offensive plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can recall, prior to the MNF game the Repoterette mentioned that she spoke to MM before the game and he told her that Atlanta will bring explosive plays to the game tonight.

Did anyone see ANY explosive plays that game or the 2 games that followed? Just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BIGGEST issue I have with MM, like jbo mentioned is to watch him essentially shut the offense down when we get a lead. If we have a 7 or 14 point lead, I want to see some agression. Not RUN RUN PASS PUNT.

I'm so sick of it.

If he just spiced up the offense some, and threw in some screen passes I would have no problem. Jenks is an excellent block, and Roddy can hold his own as well. Don't get why we run NO screen passes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. More weapons.... Michael Jenkins is a decent #2... But he is not a great #2 that we need... He's not the aggressive playmaker WR that we need.... Plaxico Burress was that... We also need a change of pace back.... Snelling has done a great job for us but its a couple of game breaking plays a faster back could make for us.

I'd say our #2 through #5 WRs are below average.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are the NFL version of the braves in these outdated schemes. We can beat the sub 500 clubs and occasionally wear down the better teams if everything bounces our way, but we are not built for the post season in this run first offense. We have the offensive players to do much better. On defense we just need more playmakers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure if you think about it though, a lot of the conservative play calling is done to protect the defense and keep them off the field. We all knew (and were affirmed) that the defense wasn't a great defense and the game couldn't be left up to that side of the ball. Obviously that strategy didn't translate to GB pt.2 esp. once we got behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say our #2 through #5 WRs are below average.

it has nothing to do with receivers.....they will run the routes which are presented to them....if they are all one dimentional skinny post or dump passes....there's nothing they can do beyond that. MM & Coach Smitty are responsible for designing creative offense EVERY single game barring the no-huddle calls which Matty Ice can run better!!

At somepoint when you meet high caliber teams in playoffs most of your hands are exposed......so if team does not have an X factor in our case = long deep balls & solid extra pass rusher....you are bound to one n done scenario.

Edited by MattyIcy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say our #2 through #5 WRs are below average.

this is simply incorrect. all season long Harry Douglas was wide open. sure he had some drops but instead of going to him to get him comfortable we avoided him. we should have been targeting him earlier so that his confidence would be up late in the season. we could've used him. Finneran is 6'5 and can jump, he should have been an option in the red zone. we've got other TEs we don't even really use in the passing game. Weems caught everything thrown at him this season. Jenkins did well this season, but I agree that we could use a more explosive WR, but our receivers aren't below average, they just aren't used to their strengths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He needs to go, period! You can't win the big football games against great teams by being conservative because as you can see with the packers game those guys exploded on us. VG needs to grow a pair and get after people and get out of these passive zone coverages cause again against great teams we will always have the same end result!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is simply incorrect. all season long Harry Douglas was wide open. sure he had some drops but instead of going to him to get him comfortable we avoided him. we should have been targeting him earlier so that his confidence would be up late in the season. we could've used him. Finneran is 6'5 and can jump, he should have been an option in the red zone. we've got other TEs we don't even really use in the passing game. Weems caught everything thrown at him this season. Jenkins did well this season, but I agree that we could use a more explosive WR, but our receivers aren't below average, they just aren't used to their strengths.

Harry was targeted 53 times this regular season. That's 3.3 times per game - not bad at all for a #3 or #4 receiver. He caught 22 for an average of 1.4 per game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BIGGEST issue I have with MM, like jbo mentioned is to watch him essentially shut the offense down when we get a lead. If we have a 7 or 14 point lead, I want to see some agression. Not RUN RUN PASS PUNT.

I'm so sick of it.

If he just spiced up the offense some, and threw in some screen passes I would have no problem. Jenks is an excellent block, and Roddy can hold his own as well. Don't get why we run NO screen passes.

my biggest issue with MM is that he sucks in taking what defenses give him, and his pass routes. Harry & Ovie were open all season. heck in the first game of the season when Troy P made that killer interception, Harry was chillin' underneath wide open. Turner has shown that he can catch out the backfield, that's a screen pass I wouldn't wanna take on if I was a defender. Finneran is great for catching jump balls. I would have liked to see us use Johnson more in the backfield, who knows. I would have loved to see us run more out of 4 or 5 WR sets. Turner is a bully of a running back, he didn't need extra blockers, heck sometimes he breaks long runs going thru 8 or 9 man boxes, imagine what damage he could do if we took away some of those defenders.

I always maintain that I'm more of a fan of our guys because even though they weren't really put in a favorable position, they still managed to accomplish a lot in spite of our scheme. as predictable as our play-calling & formations were, our linemen still managed to open up a few holes, keep Matt upright, Turner still plowed his way to a lot of yards, and Roddy still made a lot of catches. just imagine if no one knew what to expect?

Edited by raysnill1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mularkey was hired to run a ball control offense that runs the ball, eats the clock, and wears down the opponent. That's what Mike Smith wanted. The personnel on the team dictate that the Falcons basically have to play that style anyway.

TBH there just aren't many explosive players on the Falcons offense. Roddy White is an excellent receiver, but he gets open with excellent route-running and chemistry with his QB. He's no Desean Jackson. And even if he were, Matt Ryan would have trouble getting the ball to him deep. It's just something that Ryan has to work on. Michael Turner is a bruiser, but not so much an explosive playmaker. Tony Gonzalez is excellent at using his experience and guile to get open on 3rd downs, but you won't see him burning safeties on a seam route these days.

Really all of those guys are perfect for a ball control offense, but when you need some quick-strike capability, none of them are guys you'd pick for that job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey atljbo, it's been 3 years... how long will it take for Mularkey to realize that he needs to open the playbook up... or even show some type of creativity in his playcalling???

I have a question about this? Now he opened the playbook up in Pittsburgh. Now, could he be playing to Ryan's strength by not opening it up. Truth be told I wish Mularkey would take another job. This way, we can find out once and for all what Ryan is really made of. Then no more excuses, we should get our answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry was targeted 53 times this regular season. That's 3.3 times per game - not bad at all for a #3 or #4 receiver. He caught 22 for an average of 1.4 per game.

interesting. Hey a few of you mention that HD was open often. When I think back I swear I saw HD on multiple occassions with a lot of space around him... is it me, or are there others who attended the games that could verify this? My views were always from a tv perspective and could not view the field in total. thanks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...