Falcons: It's Not Mularkey, It's Ryan

[JDaveG]

(10-10-2011 04:57 PM)triggerman Wrote:  it has never been mularkey.

the plays work and they worked in the past. There is no question who it is. Ryan has limitations, and we have to deal with it.

I'm not following your logic. You say "the plays work and they worked in the past," Mularkey was calling the plays then, ergo, Mularkey isn't the problem.

But Matt Ryan was running the plays in the past, so we know full well his supposed "limitations" were not the problem then. Do you think he's hurt? Because that's really the only reason a supposed "limitation" would exist now that makes the same plays not work anymore.

[g-dawg]

Beef, that girl in your sig with the red bra on could have a third eyeball on her forehead and dandruff in her hair and I would not care.

dayummmmmm!!!!

[Scoochie Mouse]

Hey does anyone know what happened to Kerry Meier? He was supposed to be legit, and we could use a big possession receiver.

[triggerman]

(10-10-2011 05:06 PM)JDaveG Wrote:  I'm not following your logic. You say "the plays work and they worked in the past," Mularkey was calling the plays then, ergo, Mularkey isn't the problem.

But Matt Ryan was running the plays in the past, so we know full well his supposed "limitations" were not the problem then. Do you think he's hurt? Because that's really the only reason a supposed "limitation" would exist now that makes the same plays not work anymore.

no, but after a few years with a limited qb, the league catches on. so we try to add explosiveness and all we get is an exploding cigar.

mularkeys past is not ryans past. Mularkey been doing this a very long time Ryan spoiled us in 08, too bad that was his ceiling

[cooperbh]

(10-10-2011 04:15 PM)bF™ Wrote:  a lot of NFL fans thought drew brees, tom brady, big ben, phillip rivers were game managers at this point in their careers too.

go check out bradys numbers his first 4 years as a starter. not too far off from ryans. same thing with brees, rivers and big ben.

i think part of the problem is that people seem to forget that guys like ryan, flacco, sanchez and even stafford are still young as hell. everybody is trying to compare them to guys in the 10th-12th years that are surefire and borderline HOFers.

ryan can play and imo he's not that far off from being elite. he has a couple phases of his game that he needs to touch up, and that will come with experience and COACHING. giving up on ryan at this point in his career would just be plain fucking stupid. san diego made that same mistake a few years ago. luckily for them rivers turned out to be pretty good.

I know your post wasn't directed at me, but I just wanted to make clear that my criticism of Ryan is in no way an indication that I have given up on him.

[triggerman]

(10-10-2011 05:24 PM)cooperbh Wrote:  I know your post wasn't directed at me, but I just wanted to make clear that my criticism of Ryan is in no way an indication that I have given up on him.

i want to make sure my criticism of him is completely indicative that i have given up on him.

well not completely, but now that he is in the bottom of the division as far as qb rankings, im bout over him

[JDaveG]

(10-10-2011 05:20 PM)triggerman Wrote:  no, but after a few years with a limited qb, the league catches on. so we try to add explosiveness and all we get is an exploding cigar.

mularkeys past is not ryans past. Mularkey been doing this a very long time Ryan spoiled us in 08, too bad that was his ceiling

So the fact that the plays worked is not evidence that Mularkey's scheme is valid?

Or you have different standards of proof for whether someone is at fault where with Mularkey, the fact the plays worked "proves" it's not him, but with Ryan, the fact the plays worked means "he was limited and the league caught on," etc?

Why can't we assume the league caught on to Mularkey's scheme? You say Mularkey has been "doing this" a very long time. I think a lot of us would agree with that, the only difference being what "this" is......

[Scoochie Mouse]

(10-10-2011 05:28 PM)triggerman Wrote:  i want to make sure my criticism of him is completely indicative that i have given up on him.

well not completely, but now that he is in the bottom of the division as far as qb rankings, im bout over him

You know, he is the winningest QB by percentage in our history and is the first franchise QB we've had that will possibly stay for his whole career. I'm upset too, but I'm nowhere close to over him. He's outplayed Flacco, Sanchez, and several other notable QB's this year. He's going to get better, maybe this year just isn't our year. I was hyped like everyone else but looking at it, we still need a bit more. I don't think it's something that can be drafted or bought in free agency. We need experience, on all three sides of the ball and coaching as well. We're gonna get there, with Ryan as our QB and Smitty as our coach. And I'd wouldn't trade them for anyone else. Part of being a fan is experiencing those growing pains with a team. And that's what we're doing right now. Our time is coming though.

[triggerman]

(10-10-2011 05:37 PM)JDaveG Wrote:  So the fact that the plays worked is not evidence that Mularkey's scheme is valid?

Or you have different standards of proof for whether someone is at fault where with Mularkey, the fact the plays worked "proves" it's not him, but with Ryan, the fact the plays worked means "he was limited and the league caught on," etc?

Why can't we assume the league caught on to Mularkey's scheme? You say Mularkey has been "doing this" a very long time. I think a lot of us would agree with that, the only difference being what "this" is......

simple definition of ryan is accurate, with no deep ball.

his game is limited, therefore mularkey has to work with a qb who doesnt challenge the defense vertically, so mularkey takes "this" and has to limit the plays and routes.
it seems too simple to discuss. we are also limited with turner, they type of back he is. we cant draw up plays like shady or ray rice run.
i mean you dont think mularkey would say run a tunnel screen to turner?
so surely you dont think he has tons of 9 routes in his game plan for ryan and his water balloons.

no DC or def respect ryans deep ball

[JDaveG]

(10-10-2011 05:42 PM)triggerman Wrote:  simple definition of ryan is accurate, with no deep ball.

his game is limited, therefore mularkey has to work with a qb who doesnt challenge the defense vertically, so mularkey takes "this" and has to limit the plays and routes.
it seems too simple to discuss. we are also limited with turner, they type of back he is. we cant draw up plays like shady or ray rice run.
i mean you dont think mularkey would say run a tunnel screen to turner?
so surely you dont think he has tons of 9 routes in his game plan for ryan and his water balloons.

no DC or def respect ryans deep ball

Apparently we run a lot of 8 routes though, since Ryan has hit several of those deep.

In any event, your logic doesn't follow. You raise the plays "working" in the past as evidence that Mularkey is not at fault, and when it is pointed out that Ryan was running those plays when they "worked" in the past, you claim Ryan's "limitations" have caught up with us. I don't see that on the field, and in fact we saw how efficient this offense can be when it is called properly in the game Sunday night. The problem is we got away from that in the 2nd half and no one really has a good explanation why.