Jamalisms Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 12 minutes ago, oldschool said: Who said he was good? I'm arguing he's on par with most NFL coaches whereas you are taking his overall record and applying a label without considering the context. Good versus good enough. If you feel it's a meaningful distinction then change that part. Is this the best argument for Mularkey: He's the unluckiest coach in history because he's good enough and yet has a bottom 10 record - just look at his QBs? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamalisms Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 10 minutes ago, Starkiller said: You don't need another word. I have already explained the situation... He won when he had a chance. He lost when he didn't. Until you actually answer the question, I'll count this as a yes despite parsed words. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superhorn Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 I'm not sure I'll get down the hyperbolic rabbit hole of "unluckiest ever", but, sure, I believe he was put into some unlucky situations. The situation in Buffalo was so toxic that he resigned. He was not fired. In 2012, he took a Jacksonville team that was in flux with new ownership. Arguably one of the worst QBs in NFL history was forced on him. And, a new GM was hired the following offseason that wanted his own coach. I don't have to explain what a challenging situation 2015 was, as you saw it with your own eyes. I think all of us, you included, would agree that the 2005 Buffalo season, the 2012 Jacksonville season, and the 2015 Titans season were all damn near impossible win situations. And, when evaluated individually, there's rarely any argument as to why, or how, he could have performed better, especially given the circumstances. Yet, when the seasons are combined, there's an odd expectation that he should somehow regress to the mean and improve his record. I guess I just don't agree with this premise. I don't believe Mularkey is a great coach. But, I also don't believe that his win percentage is predictive of future results in Tennessee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamalisms Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 21 minutes ago, Superhorn said: I'm not sure I'll get down the hyperbolic rabbit hole of "unluckiest ever", but, sure, I believe he was put into some unlucky situations. He only had a chance to win in 28% of his games played. Discount everything but the first Buffalo year. He has among the 10 worst records for all coaches over 50 games. He is (by far) the worst coach, by record at this point in his career, to have been hired by three teams. Can't discount much more when you're already at 28%. Can't get much worse than bottom 10. Can't get worse than the worst. If he's "good enough" I don't see much room for worse luck. Given that none of you will even say he is the guy you would have hired, that the process was fine and he's the best man for the job, that nobody will argue for his qualifications only against his past - I'll say he's the exact opposite of the story being told. He's the luckiest coach ever. Nobody, literally, had ever been given this many opportunities with less to show for it. He's the worst to get this opportunity. Again, literally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 His teams being the worst doesn't make him the worst coach. Do you have an explanation for how he had a winning season with the Bills if he is such a terrible HC? Knowing that he took over a 6-win 2003 team, they didn't make huge roster changes, and still managed to win 9 games. Again, your fixation on his record regardless of circumstances makes you unreasonable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 John Harbaugh was 4-12, there are many factors involved Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 4 minutes ago, ben4titans said: He was 5-11, his first losing season in 8 seasons. Great organization loaded with talent. When the talent was gone the team went "5-11". Why didn't he coach them to a winning record? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 5 minutes ago, ben4titans said: He was 5-11, his first losing season in 8 seasons. He took over a stacked team but don't let that derail your weak argument. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 7 minutes ago, ben4titans said: This is akin to using Adrian Peterson winning the rushing title at 30 years of age this year to say we should sign Pierre Thomas (age 31) next year as our feature back and expect him to lead the league in rushing. WTF, have some of you entered into the damn Twilight Zone? This is the worst comparison ever Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamalisms Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 1 hour ago, OILERMAN said: This is the worst comparison ever It beats the Mularkey is Belichick and Walsh comparisons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamalisms Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 1 hour ago, ben4titans said: WTF, have some of you entered into the damn Twilight Zone? It's seriously just bizarre. "Mularkey has one winning season. Harbaugh has one losing season. Same coach, AMIRITE!?" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 6 minutes ago, Jamalisms said: It beats the Mularkey is Belichick and Walsh comparisons. No one said he was Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MamlngEnvy Posted January 28, 2016 Report Share Posted January 28, 2016 On 1/25/2016 at 1:49 PM, oldschool said: No one said coaching doesn't matter. Only that the majority of HC's are grouped close together. Give Mularkey the Broncos or Panthers and he's going to win like Kubiak and Rivera have this year. lol. No. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MamlngEnvy Posted January 28, 2016 Report Share Posted January 28, 2016 On 1/25/2016 at 2:40 PM, oldschool said: Why? Break it down for me. Rivera was on the verge of getting fired before his team went on the current 25-1 run. Kubiak was average with the Texans and fell into a great spot in Denver with a loaded roster. wanna know why rivera is on a 25-1 run? Hes not afraid to take chances. Mularkey was punting near or last the fifty in week like 14 of a lost season lol. And kubiak is a good coach, he won a lot with matt freaking schaub at QB for a while in Houston. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted January 28, 2016 Report Share Posted January 28, 2016 10 minutes ago, mariota's boo said: lol. No. Don't make me get in that ass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.