Mike Mularkey

From the start, Mike Mularkey has scared the heck out of me. And it wasn’t just his reputation of loving the trick play. I had read a story about how, after an initial surge in production his first year as O.C., his teams every year afterwards sank toward mediocrity (or worse). I could’ve sworn it was a Football Outsiders article, but for some reason I can’t find it now – but here’s a link from Bleacher Report that is essentially the same story (the original story I read wasn’t even this optimistic). Here's the Pro Football Reference 2001 Steelers stats for comparison.

Being a glass-half-empty guy, I’m beginning to worry that Mularkey may be one of the team’s biggest obstacles to back-to-back winning seasons, and another playoff berth. Please convince me that I’ll be wrong.

almost 3 years ago orang3b 17 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

decent article

I feel it’s right along the lines of, “falcons have never had back to back winning seasons”

There were obvious reasons why the steelers went downhill the next year under Mularkey. I don’t forsee the Falcons having the same problem.

Only thing that bugged me a little bit is his lack of use of TEs… I’ll be highly disappointed if Tony Gonzalez has less than 60-70 catches.

I also think Matt Ryan takes control of the field a lot, but I guess you’ll never know what goes through that helmet during the plays.

know what you believe in and why you believe in it

by MentallyMIA on May 27, 2009 10:42 PM EDT reply actions

Convince you that you'll be wrong...

Hmm… Um, well, of note is the fact that Pittsburgh was 3rd in his first season, and then dropped to 5th…after injuries to their starting quarterback and running back. The fact that they then went to bottom third in the league can be attributed to the fact that Kordell Stewart turned out to, well, kinda suck, and Jerome Bettis went into a slump that he didn’t come out of until Roethlisberger’s rookie year.

Honestly, I don’t expect Gonzalez getting catches will be a problem. Yeah, so Buffalo and Pittsburgh tight ends didn’t catch much when Mularkey was there. Want to know why? Look at the roster.

Starting tight ends (courtesy of http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/rosters.nsf)
2001 Pitt: Mark Bruener – 9 games, 12 catches, 98 yards
2002 Pitt: Mark Bruener – 12 games, 13 catches, 66 yards
*Bruener averaged just under a catch a game for his career
2003 Pitt: Jerame Tuman – 16 games, 12 catches, 113 yards
*Tuman averaged .33 catches per game for his career

2004 Buff: Mark Campbell – 17 catches, 203 yards, 5 TD
2005 Buff: Mark Campbell – 19 catches, 139 yards
*Mark Campbell became a free agent and went to the Saints the next season, where he proceeded to put up….:drumroll:…18 for 164 and 12 for 121 the next two seasons.

2006 Miami: Randy McMichael – 62 catches, 640 yards, 3 TD
*Since then, McMichael had 39 for 429 in 2007, 11 for 139 in 2008

When has Mularkey HAD a tight end he could effectively, frequently, and confidently use (or even think of) as a weapon?

2009. Tony Gonzalez.

The defense rests.

by BigManChili on May 27, 2009 11:04 PM EDT reply actions

Playing Devil's advocate

On the other hand, I have no way to know if Mike Mularkey will alter his offensive gameplan to take advantage of the addition of Tony Gonzalez, but I’d like to think he’s not THAT dumb.

However, he DID conveniently forget about Jerious Norwood last year while he was running Michael Turner’s legs off.

by BigManChili on May 27, 2009 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah,

I’m not too worried about him using the TE – I already did that research (a couple days after the Tony G trade). The usage (mis-use?) of Norwood frustrates the heck out of me, though…

But – if the big argument against decline is the fact that the Steelers had significant injuries the next year – you can consider me decidedly unconvinced. The Football Outsiders guys have been preaching since the end of last season that the Falcons (and Dolphins, too) will almost certainly decline next year because of injuries. They were (besides Sam Baker) remarkably healthy last season. Just an average number of injuries next year, and they will inevitably decline. And that’s not even considering the “Curse of 370” for Turner (if you believe in that). So let’s just say that I’m very… concerned about next season.

Oh, by the way – I found the original “article”. It was from the Football Outsiders guys, but it was just a sentence or 2 in the blurb about Coaches in last year’s Pro Football Prospectus 2008. I guess it became bigger in my distorted memory – like an evil fish story.

by orang3b on May 28, 2009 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions

Just win baby.

New Orleans Hornets: The most inconsistent team in the NBA.

by Grayson on May 28, 2009 3:51 AM EDT reply actions

I tend to disagree with this article.

Okay sure the 2001 Steelers declind in production the following year. However that was behind some fairly big injuries. Also the thing that strikes me is its just a bunch of piss in the wind type of speculation, you know what’s going on but you just don’t know where it will go.

Despite me being one of the most pessimistic Falcon fans I hate to “admit it” but this is a different Falcons team. Maybe we wont make the playoffs, maybe we only get to 8-8 or 9-7. But I can tell you something, things have changed for the better.

I just hope the saying, “The more things change the more they stay the same” doesn’t come back to bite me.

New Orleans Hornets: The most inconsistent team in the NBA.

by Grayson on May 28, 2009 7:58 AM EDT reply actions

Matt Ryan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>K. Stewart...

"We're not maxed out, ... The best is still ahead of us."

Bobby Bowden

by NaGaNole on May 28, 2009 10:46 AM EDT reply actions

Agreed

When I first saw the comparison of their #’s, it was like a slap in the face. But then I remembered that Ryan was a rookie (with plenty of room to grow), and Kordell was 29 years old in 2001 (and not going to get any better than that). Then I felt much better…

by orang3b on May 28, 2009 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions

Agreed

That comparison is absolutely terrible. Kordell Stewart never was nor will be a, and I depsise this term, “franchise quarterback.”

I’ve said before and I’ll say it again, if The Burner goes down, yes, we are in serious trouble. But I think that we have enough weapons to piece something together. Say he gets hurt in week 9 or 10, I would honestly feel comfortable with Norwood tearing it up for 6 or 7 weeks.

Not that Turner will get hurt, considering he is impervious to man made weapons.

"If you can’t get excited for Ryan throwing to Gonzalez, you’re either a robot or clinically dead. Or you’re a zombie robot, which is just plain awesome."
Dave the Falconer

by Pregame with Pabst on May 29, 2009 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions

I'm willing to bet

that we will be no where near in serious trouble if Turner goes down. Norwood would be able to pick up the slack just fine and our passing game is going to be better this year. I don’t see Turner getting as many carries as he did last year. Norwood has to get more carries because no back can carry it that many times without something happening eventually.

"If Woody were Captain of the Titanic, he'd argue the boat sinking speaks to how effectively they put rich people in life boats and lock the poor folks below."
-jrauch commenting at Hoopinion on Woody's (non)logic in his post-game comments

by Jesse28 on May 29, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions

I think Norwood/Brown would be servicable in that role...

"We're not maxed out, ... The best is still ahead of us."

Bobby Bowden

by NaGaNole on May 29, 2009 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions

If so,

Jason Snelling and Norwood?
I mean theres a reason theyre on our roster, they impressed TD enough to stay on.
Im not worried, and what ARE The chances?

by FlyYouFalcons on Jun 1, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions

I have confidence in our bakups at RB

Norwood is starter quality, and Thomas Brown and Snelling are very capable second string quality RBs.

Hopefully it never comes down to it because Turner is on a level beyond that of your average work horse, but we can still win football games without him.

know what you believe in and why you believe in it

by MentallyMIA on Jun 1, 2009 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions

I think Mularkey will be fine

He definitely made some weird calls last season and has a vanilla reputation, but he’s working with a plethora of offensive talent, alongside smart players and under a head coach who isn’t going to tolerate mediocrity. My faith in him is much higher than it was before last season started.

by Dave Choate on May 30, 2009 2:30 AM EDT reply actions

This article is completely worthless...

It went from worthless to completely worthless when the author tried to compare Matt Ryan with Kordell Stewart…(I love when journalists pull out the “eerily similar” stats, so they are the same player).

The article has some points, I guess, but the author is so biased that it just seems like something I woud read on the Bucs board.

Guy #1: Damn, these oysters are going to make us horny as hell...
Girl #2: Oh yeah, I forgot oysters are hermaphrodites.

by bwellnjonesco on Jun 1, 2009 10:56 AM EDT reply actions

Well,

Take a look at the author’s bio. Just about all he writes about is the Falcons – so I doubt he’s biased, unless maybe he’s biased in favor of the Falcons… He’s just pointing out some surprising similarities. Actually, after seeing his bio, I wouldn’t be surprised if he got the idea for the story from that PFP08 blurb…

by orang3b on Jun 1, 2009 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions