Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

RnB · 10-04-2011, 02:40 PM

(10-04-2011 01:46 PM)Paulitik Wrote: It seems to me though, that you and Rad simply want to blame the talent for not executing, and absolve the Coordinators. Where as the Mularkey and BVG "haters" blame both. I think it's natural to blame the coordinators because like I said it's easier for them to adjust than it is for us to make significant roster changes midseason.

Although the level of hyperbole is higher with the crowd that hates our playcalling, I don't think anyone would dispute that we have weaknesses with the OL, namely Baker and Reynolds, and the DL and Secondary are underperforming, especially the high priced FAs in Robinson and Edwards. I don't believe that Rad or yourself give nearly enough blame on the coaching.

The fact after 3 1/4 years, we still suck after the half and let lesser teams in the game. Winning is great, but it's grating on us that the issues that have plagued us for over a decade in pass rush, and coverage are not getting fixed. We feel like we have talent, but they are being forced to fit the coaches philosphies, as opposed to being used to the best of their ability to help us win. This frustration is what's causing all this hostility. It's easier to blow a gasket over the team as whole than just the play of a player or two. The other issue is that if these players aren't executing, then why are the coaches not putting their back ups in, or adjusting the roster to address these issues? The coaching staff needs the majority of the blame, and I don't think that's unreasonable.

No, it is not unreasonable but the hyperbole you spoke of simply makes people respond accordingly. You can easily state your opinions without causing other fans to think you're a nutcase. Big Grin

Beef · (This post was last modified: 10-04-2011 03:18 PM by Beef.)

(10-04-2011 01:14 PM)cooperbh Wrote: I'll quit saying everyone here is calling for Mularkey's head just as soon as I start saying it. Or maybe you can just quote the post where I said everyone here is calling for Mularkey's head? No?

Moving on...

From page 2 you said: "All of these armchair OCs blathering on about "predictable" and "bland" playcalling are hilarious.... Then the Falcons turn around and call only 8 first down run plays in the second half and the usual suspects are once again calling for Mularkey's head.... It's amazing how many members of Mularkey's lynch mob completely fail to understand that. "

I'm one of the folks talking about predictable play calling, but I'm certainly not "one of the usual suspects calling for Mularkey's head" or a "member of Mularkey's lynch mob". And I'm absolutely sure that not everyone here who saw Mularkey call a bad second half and are commenting on it are part of those groups either. So yes, you were exagerating and generalizing on top of being innaccurate about the whole "abandoning the run" and "You win by consistently executing, as the Ravens did last night." when it's obvious our OL won't allow us to consistently execute predictable runs.

Last year I was one of the people who defended MM against all the naysayers constantly. But so far this year, I'm actually seeing him make numerous bad decisions and lack of adjustments. Everyone knows we have a bad OL and I'm not seeing the types of plays that are supposed to work better when that's the case. That doesn't mean I'm calling for his head or want him lynched. I'm just pointing out that in 16 quarters of play, only 3-4 have looked good IMO and the rest haven't, and I'm laying a lot of blame on MM as a result. That's all.

Quote:Bleacher Report and other such ametuer blogging sites are not media outlets. Callers on a sports radio talk show are not media outlets.

I would think that if "every media outlet" did in fact see "a horribly called play scheme in the second half" and publicly commented on it, then you should have no problem finding and posting a link to one of these criticisms, right? Just one. I'd love to read such a take.

Did I say Bleacher Report, fan bloggers, or callers? No, I said guys like David Archer, Chris Dimino, Shapiro, Cellini, John Michaels, Buck and Kincaid, Chuck and Chernoff... even idiots like Mike Bell and the 2 Stewart brothers were bringing it up and pointing out how brilliant of a first half we had and how aweful the play calling was in the second half. They've been forced to talk about it because every time they take calls, some caller brings it up and then they all sit there and discuss it. And guess what, they're saying exactly what I'm saying.

Now I'm not even saying that half those guys are great or even close to good at true football analysis. It's not about that. It's the fact that not just "the usual suspects" saw bad play calling so far this year and are commenting on it.

And when guys like Dave Archer, who have full access to the Falcons every game and know WTF they're talking about with regards to this team criticises the play calling too, it's actually got some teeth.

Paulitik · 10-04-2011, 04:33 PM

(10-04-2011 02:40 PM)RnB Wrote: No, it is not unreasonable but the hyperbole you spoke of simply makes people respond accordingly. You can easily state your opinions without causing other fans to think you're a nutcase.

Fan is short for fanatic, so that's redundant. I have to be a grown up in every other aspect of my life. I enjoy being an insufferable asshole when it comes to my sports allegiances on occassion. I usually prefer that to be with rival fans than our own, and 9 times out of 10, that's just joking around trying to get a rise out of them. I give Guido shit, but he seems like a cool guy, but that's not going to stop making fun of the vagina on Drew Brees face or the fact that Sean Payton looks like Malcolm in the Middle if he were a grown up, drug addled, sex offender, nor should it stop him from making fun of our guys.

You can't take the internet too seriously, it's not the real world, and no one is who they really are, no matter how ridiculous they act, or how serious they take themselves.

I get fired up, but that's usually contained to the moments I'm online. I don't really take it with me. I'm here to have fun, get the latest news or speculation, and give my opinion. At least if we are being unreasonable it's talking about sports and not anything important.

Paulitik · 10-04-2011, 04:44 PM

(10-04-2011 03:13 PM)Beef Wrote: And when guys like Dave Archer, who have full access to the Falcons every game and know WTF they're talking about with regards to this team criticises the play calling too, it's actually got some teeth.

Good point.

I love Arch, but he is all company man, and he always defends the coaching staff because he pretty much has to if he wants to keep his job. I was really suprised when he called out the playcalling, especially the 3 man front stuff. If anyone is an apologist for the way we do things he is, so when he starts questioning things, that really makes you think.

Paprika Neck · 10-04-2011, 04:55 PM

you don't run the ball on 2nd and long

cooperbh · 10-05-2011, 12:43 PM

(10-04-2011 03:13 PM)Beef Wrote: And when guys like Dave Archer, who have full access to the Falcons every game and know WTF they're talking about with regards to this team criticises the play calling too, it's actually got some teeth.

What specifically was he criticizing, just out of curiosity? The run to pass ratio? The formations used? Did he use words like "bland" or predictable?" Did he make a passing comment about a single play, or was it a running commentary on all offensive plays called in the second half? Did he mention Mularkey by name?

Because I make critical comments regarding the offensive play calling nearly every game. That doesn't mean I necessarily believe those questionable play calls were primarily responsible for any lack of offensive production in a given week.

cooperbh · 10-05-2011, 12:47 PM

(10-04-2011 04:44 PM)Paulitik Wrote: Good point.

I love Arch, but he is all company man, and he always defends the coaching staff because he pretty much has to if he wants to keep his job. I was really suprised when he called out the playcalling, especially the 3 man front stuff. If anyone is an apologist for the way we do things he is, so when he starts questioning things, that really makes you think.

So, Mularkey is calling the defensive plays too? Wow. What an ego on that guy.

Jesus · 10-05-2011, 12:58 PM

Are we done with the name calling yet?

Here is a bit from the latest TMQ surrounding New England and play calling in general.

Quote:In other football news, the Patriots have the league's leading offense, averaging an Arena League-like 507 yards per game. Last year, New England was the NFL's highest-scoring team. In 2007, the Patriots set the NFL record for points in a season. Yet Bill Belichick cut his teeth as a defensive zealot. His big break was as defensive coordinator for the Bill Parcells Super Bowl Giants, a grind-it-out defensive team. As head coach in Cleveland, Belichick emphasized defense. Now he's an offensive wizard, while the Patriots rank last in the NFL in defense. Impostor, tell me where the real Bill Belichick is and what you've done with him!

The New England coach is nothing if not analytical, and realized -- especially with the past decade of rule changes intended to favor offense -- that defense-oriented teams sometimes win but high-scoring teams almost always win. There are coaches who strategize to come out ahead in a low-scoring defensive struggle. For the past five years, Belichick has been strategizing to spin the scoreboard. The Patriots under Belichick are now 62-3 when scoring at least 30 points. A high-scoring team almost always wins, so Belichick has undergone a religious conversion, from defense to offense.

For five seasons, Belichick has been using a shotgun-spread offense, mostly from the no-huddle, because recent experience shows this puts up the most points. Against a no-huddle offense, the defense can't substitute, and since playing defensive line is more tiring than playing offensive line, in the second half, the Patriots' O-line takes over. Despite 163 pass attempts, New England has allowed just four sacks -- a tired, disorganized opposition is a reason. And Belichick has been studying the playbooks of great offensive teams of the past, including Bill Walsh's. On Sunday, the Patriots rolled out a favorite Walsh play, a double fake. Tom Brady pump-faked a screen pass left, then rapidly play-faked a draw, then threw down the middle to Deion Branch for a touchdown. Steve Young was a master of the double fake. In the current NFL, only Brady and Drew Brees run this action consistently.

Right now the league's five highest-scoring teams -- Green Bay, Detroit, New England, Buffalo and New Orleans -- are a combined 17-3. None of these teams are in the top 10 for defense. In the modern game, high-scoring is the surest path to victory.

Maybe we're doing it all wrong?

How can Buffalo be doing it right?

Beef · (This post was last modified: 10-05-2011 04:51 PM by Beef.)

(10-05-2011 12:43 PM)cooperbh Wrote: What specifically was he criticizing, just out of curiosity? The run to pass ratio? The formations used? Did he use words like "bland" or predictable?" Did he make a passing comment about a single play, or was it a running commentary on all offensive plays called in the second half? Did he mention Mularkey by name?

Because I make critical comments regarding the offensive play calling nearly every game. That doesn't mean I necessarily believe those questionable play calls were primarily responsible for any lack of offensive production in a given week.

He specificially used the word "predictable" several times. Mike Bell is sitting there lambasting Baker nonstop and asking over and over if it's the OL's fault entirely and Archer said several times it's a combination of poor execution and scheme. He specifically said we're getting too well known around the league for being conservative when we're ahead after the half and it's made us predictable.

He even said several times that with the OL struggling, we may have to alter our normal gameplan and try things that aren't on film every week.

As for the 3-3-5 comments he made, those were always in the context of discussing the defense. And yes, he gave the pros and cons of it and said if it's done right against the right offense, it can be very effective. He specifically mentioned how Peterson was shadowing Jackson in that set and this was intended to stop him from running. But then he followed it up with if it's done too much and you can't even get coverage sacks while doing it, eventually even bad QB's will find a receiver open with enough time. And he said we're having problems getting pressure with 4 and 5 rushers, so that's why he doesn't really like us using the 3-3-5.

If you listen to him, he's a company man, but he also knows his shit and says it so it's not a badmouthing of the Falcons because he always gives the pros and cons of anything we do and it sounds better.

Paulitik · 10-05-2011, 02:37 PM

(10-05-2011 12:47 PM)cooperbh Wrote: So, Mularkey is calling the defensive plays too? Wow. What an ego on that guy.

No he was talking about BVG, and the play calling of the team in general. I just pointed out because he really acted befuddled with all the 3 men fronts on 3rd down.