Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Paulitik · (This post was last modified: 09-27-2011 03:55 PM by Paulitik.)

(09-27-2011 01:56 PM)Radical Wrote: Because we didn't all the sudden stop protecting against GB. Pittsburgh, 49ers, Eagles, and Saints 2 were examples where the defense was blasting through our line regularly.

It's pretty simple. Before, Baker was the only player on our line that was consistently horrible. Now, you've replaced an above average Harvey Dahl with a poorly performing first time starting Reynolds. Throw in the fact that our solid starting center is coming back from injury, and before was also replaced with the first time starter in Joe Hawley, and it's fairly obvious what the problem is.

If it was the "scheme", then we wouldn't just now be seeing "jail break" city along our line. No scheme causes Sam Baker to get abused like he was by Trent Cole against the Eagles(or every DE he's played so far), nor does it lead to the C/RG being blown up in about .5-1 second.

Coach Smith hints that might not be the case:

Quote:“Not only are you trying to figure that out, we are as well,” Smith said. “We have not protected our quarterback like we have in the past and that’s something that we have to look at schematically first. That’s the first thing we have to look at and then the second thing that we have to look at is the personnel. Right now, those are the two things that we’re looking at and, really, those are the two options that you have when things aren’t going the way that you would like in a certain area.”

If it's absolutely not the scheme, why does he say this, and why is the media starting to notiec the difference in our no-huddle? Why can Sam Baker block in the no-huddle, but can't the rest of the game? I ablsolutely believe that we have a mediocre OL at best, but I also believe we run the wrong offensive scheme for our QB and receiving talent. Mike Mularkey maybe a fit for Mike Smith's ideal team, a 2000 Ravens type team, or early 2000 Steelers type team, but not a fit for the elite talent on our offense.

**Radical** · 09-27-2011, 04:02 PM

(09-27-2011 03:52 PM)Paulitik Wrote: Coach Smith hints that might not be the case:

If it's absolutely not the scheme, why does he say this, and why is the media starting to notiec the difference in our no-huddle? Why can Sam Baker block in the no-huddle, but can't the rest of the game? I ablsolutely believe that we have a mediocre OL at best, but I also believe we run the wrong offensive scheme for our QB and receiving talent. Mike Mularkey maybe a fit for Mike Smith's ideal team, a 2000 Ravens type team, or early 2000 Steelers type team, but not a fit for the elite talent on our offense.

That's a very vague line. Scheme in this context is going to mean adjusting to play more conservatively, leaving extra TEs in to block, throwing quick/shorter passes, etc.

Baker doesn't give up pressure every time we run our standard offense either. A no huddle offense generally works in favor of the offensive line because it tires out defensive linemen and the ball usually is designed to come out quickly.

I've already gone over why our no huddle is more successful nearly half a dozen times now. Your last lines makes no sense. Mularkey had two 1,300 yard WRs with the QB in the top 5 for YPA in the early 2000s. It isn't like his offense has never worked before, and that's with Tommy fuck Maddox at QB.

Paulitik · 09-27-2011, 05:36 PM

(09-27-2011 04:02 PM)Radical Wrote: That's a very vague line. Scheme in this context is going to mean adjusting to play more conservatively, leaving extra TEs in to block, throwing quick/shorter passes, etc.

Baker doesn't give up pressure every time we run our standard offense either. A no huddle offense generally works in favor of the offensive line because it tires out defensive linemen and the ball usually is designed to come out quickly.

I've already gone over why our no huddle is more successful nearly half a dozen times now. Your last lines makes no sense. Mularkey had two 1,300 yard WRs with the QB in the top 5 for YPA in the early 2000s. It isn't like his offense has never worked before, and that's with Tommy fuck Maddox at QB.

ONE SEASON like a decade ago when they collapsed after 2 consecutive playoff appearances. They wnet like 6-10 that year. He was demoted in Miami, didn't work out in Buffalo. You have one good statistical season, after 2 decent seasons that you actually do something in the playoffs, with 2 ridiculously talented recievers, an above average, late bloomer at QB, a dominant OLine, power RBs and a historically great Defense in a totally different conference, in a totally different division isn't the strongest argument when it's tough to prove that Mike Mularkey was the reason they made the playoffs.

**Radical** · 09-27-2011, 06:13 PM

(09-27-2011 05:36 PM)Paulitik Wrote: ONE SEASON like a decade ago when they collapsed after 2 consecutive playoff appearances. They wnet like 6-10 that year. He was demoted in Miami, didn't work out in Buffalo. You have one good statistical season, after 2 decent seasons that you actually do something in the playoffs, with 2 ridiculously talented recievers, an above average, late bloomer at QB, a dominant OLine, power RBs and a historically great Defense in a totally different conference, in a totally different division isn't the strongest argument when it's tough to prove that Mike Mularkey was the reason they made the playoffs.

He had two very good offenses in both his first year and second year with below average talent everywhere but WR. Are you seriously going to tell me that Maddox or Stewart were ever "above average?" Their defense was not the great Pittsburgh defense it has been the past 6 or so years, finishing in the middle of the pack in scoring when he was there.

Paulitik · 09-27-2011, 07:15 PM

(09-27-2011 06:13 PM)Radical Wrote: He had two very good offenses in both his first year and second year with below average talent everywhere but WR. Are you seriously going to tell me that Maddox or Stewart were ever "above average?" Their defense was not the great Pittsburgh defense it has been the past 6 or so years, finishing in the middle of the pack in scoring when he was there.

Maddox was slinging it late in his career. But still, you are bringing up an offense of a decade ago in a totally different era, that really wasn't all it's cracked up to be. Hardly an argument that he's some kind of offensive guru that is more important to the team than Matt. We need an OC that brings the best out of out $72 million investment.

***phocis850*** · 09-27-2011, 07:29 PM

Last offensive guru we brought in here had the last name of cough petrino.

**Radical** · 09-27-2011, 07:57 PM

(09-27-2011 07:15 PM)Paulitik Wrote: Maddox was slinging it late in his career. But still, you are bringing up an offense of a decade ago in a totally different era, that really wasn't all it's cracked up to be. Hardly an argument that he's some kind of offensive guru that is more important to the team than Matt. We need an OC that brings the best out of out $72 million investment.

The only halfway decent year Maddox ever had was under Mularkey. It's hardly like the guy has had much to work with in his career. Up until he came to Atlanta, he's worked with absolute garbage with the Bills and Miami. Heck, Matt Ryan is the first decent QB he's ever worked with.

Paulitik · 09-27-2011, 08:36 PM

(09-27-2011 07:57 PM)Radical Wrote: The only halfway decent year Maddox ever had was under Mularkey. It's hardly like the guy has had much to work with in his career. Up until he came to Atlanta, he's worked with absolute garbage with the Bills and Miami. Heck, Matt Ryan is the first decent QB he's ever worked with.

There are so many other variables involved. I'm sure the fact that he had Hines Ward, and Plaxico Burress didn't help at all. But if Mularkey's offense is so simple that a bust like Maddox can run it, you are only proving our point. Matt has outgrown his offense, and we need to move on.

It was a great offense for a Rookie QB, but we could do better. We need to challenge our QB, not handcuff him to a limited offense.

mcsupersport · 09-27-2011, 09:01 PM

(09-27-2011 08:36 PM)Paulitik Wrote: There are so many other variables involved. I'm sure the fact that he had Hines Ward, and Plaxico Burress didn't help at all. But if Mularkey's offense is so simple that a bust like Maddox can run it, you are only proving our point. Matt has outgrown his offense, and we need to move on.

It was a great offense for a Rookie QB, but we could do better. We need to challenge our QB, not handcuff him to a limited offense.

Horseshit, we need to protect our QB so he can look around for receivers instead of watching to see who is going to kill him this play. You go look at Patriots and look at the time and area Brady has...that is what makes an offense work in the passing game. You fix the O-line and the plays called will work and work well, but they need time to actually do something, not having your QB take a shot just to be able to have a 5 step drop pass play.

Paulitik · 09-27-2011, 09:08 PM

(09-27-2011 09:01 PM)mcsupersport Wrote: Horseshit, we need to protect our QB so he can look around for receivers instead of watching to see who is going to kill him this play. You go look at Patriots and look at the time and area Brady has...that is what makes an offense work in the passing game. You fix the O-line and the plays called will work and work well, but they need time to actually do something, not having your QB take a shot just to be able to have a 5 step drop pass play.

I don't disagree with you, our OL blows. But the fact is, the routes we run don't seem to be getting our WRs the separation or the open space for YAC anyway.

This isn't a black and white issue, our OLine sucks, and our Offensive Scheme is lacking. It's not one or the other. Mularkey needs to adapt. Watch the Saints and the Packers and see what they are doing. It's a shitstorm, and it needs to resolved NOW.