+- Atlanta Falcons Talk (http://atlantafalconstalk.com)
+-- Forum: Falcons Fans Message Boards (/Forum-Falcons-Fans-Message-Boards)
+--- Forum: Talk About The Falcons & So Much More (/Forum-Talk-About-The-Falcons-So-Much-More)
+--- Thread: Falcons: play to not lose (/Thread-Falcons-play-to-not-lose)
Pages: 1 2
play to not lose - bulldozer - 01-08-2012 04:28 PM
a deffensive minded head coach along with an OC who is conservative as all get out= a nonagressive nonscoring pussy play calling team
RE: play to not lose - BullRush - 01-08-2012 04:32 PM
Funny thing is Mularkey isn't known for being conservative. I don't know if he is being tied by talent or his superiors
RE: play to not lose - MilleniumFalcon - 01-08-2012 04:35 PM
In today's NFL you can't play like this and this mentality. We look like a 1960's football team, short passes, and power running, that simply doesn't work in the NFL anymore. Can we enter the 21st century?
RE: play to not lose - Beef - 01-08-2012 09:34 PM
I've said this several times before, but slow as fuck Michael Turner as our #1 RB and our incredibly below average OL forces us to run the dink n dunk predictable scheme we do. But the clear problem with this is the fact that MM has no clue how to create dynamic receiver routes, spread out defenses, and utilize talent properly in this scheme. So here we are.
What sucks most is, Matty has the skills to run a much more dynamic fast-paced spread offense, but he has been brainwashed by this conservative power run game checkdown underneath or throw it away mentality for 4 straight years, and this has likely stunted his true potential and might just be difficult for a bit for him to adjust to something new. Especially if our OL continues to give him zero time and if we continue to run predictible as fuck plays every time Turner is in there.
As productive as Turner's numbers look, I really have to wonder what kind of numbers someone like Matt Forte or MJD would put up for us, or if we had a Sproles-speed option coming out of our backfield with an OC who knew how to utilize him. Either Turner needs to go, or he needs to become our Brandon Jacobs, someone who comes in only when the game is in hand and all that's left is to run out the clock pounding down a tired defense. And we get a real #1 RB who the defense really has no clue if we're running, passing, going up the middle, hitting the edges, or running a screen. Turner simply doesn't leave defenses guessing at all, and that's a huge weakness for us. Especially when you factor in Mularkey's ineptness and a shitty pass blocking OL.
MM, OL, AND Turner, IMO, are our biggest issues. We change those and sky's the limit for this offense.
RE: play to not lose - Paulitik - 01-08-2012 09:41 PM
(01-08-2012 04:32 PM)BullRush Wrote: Funny thing is Mularkey isn't known for being conservative. I don't know if he is being tied by talent or his superiors
The occasional reverse is hardly proof that Mularkey isn't conservative. The philosophy of this offense is ridiculously conservative.
Keep Eli off the field isn't an offensive strategy, its pussying out.
RE: play to not lose - The Don™ - 01-08-2012 09:46 PM
Yeah, I want a back that can be the #1 guy that can run and catch and keep the defenses guessing. In this day and age of offenses, I don't think it's the best option to have a guy with Turner's skill set to be the #1 guy. I don't like that our offense has to rely on Turner so much. We can't have an offense that has to rely on Turner getting his 20 something carries so we can win games. That doesn't fly in the pass-happy style NFL where elite teams like the Saints, Pats, and Packers dominate. We're locked in a very old school, predictable mindset.
RE: play to not lose - =abrahamburger= - 01-08-2012 09:47 PM
MM was pretty conservative with BUF and Mia. Lack of screens and runs of the middles = his stint in both places.
He's not the full problem but he's a consistent one.
RE: play to not lose - Radical - 01-08-2012 10:36 PM
The most important issue we have is our inability to win in the trenches. The Packers, Saints, and Patriots all have extremely strong offensive lines(if the Packers could stay healthy there). We can't even get a push on 4th and inches, and that's not winning football.
As for Mularkey, he's gone. Break it down however you want, but 0 points is simply unacceptable for what we have.
RE: play to not lose - =abrahamburger= - 01-08-2012 10:37 PM
I'm over the upset-aspect, but I can't get over this:
2 points.
Our defense scored 2 points and that's it. I mean, DAMN? We couldn't even get a FG?
RE: play to not lose - papachaz - 01-08-2012 10:46 PM
(01-08-2012 10:37 PM)=abrahamburger= Wrote: I'm over the upset-aspect, but I can't get over this:
2 points.
Our defense scored 2 points and that's it. I mean, DAMN? We couldn't even get a FG?
we could have kicked a field goal instead of another epic fail on 4th and inches.....so we would have ended the game with 5 points.
