I don't really think the problem is Mike Mularkey

[The Falcon Jedi]

Turner just seems to go down too easily sometimes, but every time I see him run there arent really any holes open for him. He just seems to always run into a brick wall of linemen. When he does get a hole he does get some yards.

Tony G. isnt going to outrun anybody, but he does run good routes and he can push a defender out of the way. And he still has good hands. That's all we need from him.

[RnB]

You know my opinion on this one.

There is much more going on than just the scheme or playcalling. I dont quite subscribe to your notion that we give some of our players more credit than they are worth. We have plenty of talent on this team. Not as much as some teams, but enough to win games if they execute.

Yes, it was good to see Jenks back. Now if we can brush up on our protections, catching, and passing we will be good to go.

[AtlantaFalconPokerPro]

(10-18-2010 10:13 AM)Peyton Wrote:  I see a ton of hate for Mularkey today, even though, honestly, it was the defense that was particularly horrible yesterday.

I think the reason that this offense is disappointing to some is really quite simple - none of these players on the offense are quite as good as the fanbase thinks they are - except for Roddy White.

Even Tony Gonzalez, who still has great hands, is strictly a possession TE now, not capable of getting vertical unless the defense completely blows the coverage.

Our fanbase likes to think Turner is a top 5 RB in the league, and I love the guy, but we are talking about a guy still with one 1,000 season on his resume - he hasn't earned that elite status. In 2008, the Falcons played one of the most rediculously easy schedules in league history with regards to run defenses, and frankly, I think it all made us think that both the line and Turner are better than they actually are.

Mularkey's offenses have been in the top 13 in scoring since he got here and top half of the league in yards since he got here. He inherited a rookie QB that the fanbase was mostly not sold on and also an offense that was losing 3 Pro Bowlers.

In 2008 we all thought Mularkey was a freaking miracle worker. He and the players did a great job but also benefitted from the rediculous schedule. Now, he is a bit of a victim of his own success.

I don't think the talent we have on O can trick 90% of the fan base, and 90% of the media. Every article I read mentions the amount of play makers we have on offense. Our talent on O isn't being used properly.

Go look at MM stats from his previous jobs. They look much like ours. Do you think that is a coincidence? I'm done making excuses for MM, and Sam Baker.

[Radical]

(10-19-2010 09:48 AM)AtlantaFalconPokerPro Wrote:  I don't think the talent we have on O can trick 90% of the fan base, and 90% of the media. Every article I read mentions the amount of play makers we have on offense. Our talent on O isn't being used properly.

Go look at MM stats from his previous jobs. They look much like ours. Do you think that is a coincidence? I'm done making excuses for MM, and Sam Baker.

Who cares what skill position players you have if Ryan can't get the protection to get the ball to them most of the time, and there isn't the holes for Turner to run through. Turner is great, but he's no Adrian Peterson, and he isn't going to be breaking tackles behind the LOS very often.

Mularkey's stint with the Steelers was good, Mularkey left the Bills after there was a turnover in the FO and he didn't like the new staff, and he had one year as OC with the Dolphins where the QB and RB went down for the entire season early on as Nick Saban jumped ship. Cam Cameran was hired after Saban left, so naturally he installed his offense and dropped Mularkey down the ranks.

[Peyton]

(10-19-2010 09:48 AM)AtlantaFalconPokerPro Wrote:  I don't think the talent we have on O can trick 90% of the fan base, and 90% of the media.

I disagree, and I think way more than 10% of the Falcons fanbase realizes the offense is short on playmakers. I started a thread on the other board that said as much before the season started, and probably half the people who posted in it agreed with me.

As far as the media goes, I got zero respect for the media's opinion. All they watch is highlights.

Edit - but don't get me wrong. The problems with the pass protection are equally as concerning as the lack of playmakers.

[breadslicer]

Well of course we're not going to get our QB enough time in the pocket for a deep passing game because he's usually in a third and long situation by the time our OC dials up anything that can be construed as a downfield pass.

It's amazing to me how many times our QB actually gets the 1st.

And how is Ryan ever supposed to get into any kind of rythym?

There have been a couple of 'shot' plays I can remember that were very close and then it's as if we fall back to kidding ourselves that we can impose our will on a good defensive line with the running game on 1st and 2nd down.

Makes me mental.

[Radical]

(10-19-2010 10:50 AM)breadslicer Wrote:  Well of course we're not going to get our QB enough time in the pocket for a deep passing game because he's usually in a third and long situation by the time our OC dials up anything that can be construed as a downfield pass.

It's amazing to me how many times our QB actually gets the 1st.

And how is Ryan ever supposed to get into any kind of rythym?

There have been a couple of 'shot' plays I can remember that were very close and then it's as if we fall back to kidding ourselves that we can impose our will on a good defensive line with the running game on 1st and 2nd down.

Makes me mental.

It is a myth that we only run the majority of the time on 1st down.

In the 1st half, we threw 10 times on 1st compared to 5 runs.

Of those 5 runs, here were the results.

No gain, 9 yards, 5 yards, 4 yards, 4 yards.

I can post the 2nd half info if you want, but I left it out simply because we were ridiculously behind all of the 2nd half and were in pass happy mode. If anything, it would serve to prove my point even more.

[breadslicer]

(10-19-2010 11:03 AM)Radical Wrote:  It is a myth that we only run the majority of the time on 1st down.

In the 1st half, we threw 10 times on 1st compared to 5 runs.

Of those 5 runs, here were the results.

No gain, 9 yards, 5 yards, 4 yards, 4 yards.

I can post the 2nd half info if you want, but I left it out simply because we were ridiculously behind all of the 2nd half and were in pass happy mode. If anything, it would serve to prove my point even more.

How many of those passes were 'down the field'?

I personally view the small stuff as an extension of the run game in the WCO philosophy.

[RnB]

Define "shot" plays, please. I think you may be referring to long passing plays on an early down?

Theres a reason we run the ball on early downs, dont consistently go deep on 1st or 2nd down, and always return to what has worked for us in the past. Several reasons, actually. On third down, most teams usually do enough to move the chains rather than go for a "big" play; a short high percentage run or a quick pass. Before the Eagles game and all those drops/defensed/misthrows, our 3rd down conversion percentage was ridiculous. That gives us two downs to either run or pass.

Its not like our gameplan is to run three downs in a row and then punt, we mix it up nicely as far as run/pass ratio. I always see people talk about how we run/run/pass every series, but I would like to remind everyone that we couldnt maintain a nearly 50/50 split if that were the truth.

Ill leave it at that before I start rambling. Maybe I misunderstood what you are driving at, Breadslicer.

[Radical]

(10-19-2010 11:18 AM)breadslicer Wrote:  How many of those passes were 'down the field'?

I personally view the small stuff as an extension of the run game in the WCO philosophy.

No team in the league throws even half of its passes more than 10 yards past the LOS. Regardless of that fact, if you don't have the time in the pocket, how can you go "down the field" to begin with. I mean, I guess Ryan can start lofting passes up there will under pressure to covered WRs, but I am not a fan of 3+ INT games.

The WCO didn't even the short pass, and we don't run the WCO. Just because a player catches a short pass or runs a slant, it doesn't mean that it was "WCO inspired".

To answer the question though. Here are the results from the 10 passes.

42 yard(deep left to Jenkins)
incomplete(no information to Jenkins)
1 yard(short right to Palmer)
incomplete(no play do to Eagles penalty)
incomplete(short right to Turner)
incomplete(deep left to Roddy)
incomplete(short left to Gonzo)
18 yard(deep right to Douglas)
4 yard(short right to Douglas)
incomplete(Gonzalez)