Will Mularkey be the HC for the bulk of Mariota's career?

[Face]

Say what you will about Mike Mularkey but he went out there this year & backed up every last thing he said. He said we were going to be a blue collar, physical team that will beat people up, and that's exactly what we've done. We've gone out there week after week, lining up in 2 TE & 2 back sets & ran it down folk's throats. We just went to KC, the hottest team in the league playing in the coldest stadium in the league, and our top 2 backs went 27 for 157 against their brutal D.

Mularkey clearly defined the type of team he wanted, and expected. And went out there & produced. Ideally you'd like to pair a young, great QB with 1 HC, and one offensive system, for the bulk of his career. Do you guys think this is the system for him for the long haul? It's different then most, with all the heavy sets & downfield routes. We have a supremely talented QB but Mularkey is going to run the ball a lot, that will never change.

So, is Mularkey our HC for the next 6-8 years? Basically, do we stick to the power running/play action based offense we're using now or will Marcus outgrow it & be better off in more of a complex passing game? Myself personally, I love this offense. I've always loved watching teams run it down peoples throats to set up the deep ball.

 

[EagleEye]

If they continue to win then yes. 

[Number9]

Teams have runs.  Then they lose too many key players through FA and have a down year, maybe a few.  When that happens, the coach gets fired for not winning.  Mularkey is a good coach, but he's no Jeff Fisher.  The fans will demand blood sacrifice for losing.  Mike Mularkey.

[Face]

Mularkey signed a 3 year deal so it's all about next year. Expectations will be high & I expect a big year.  But if we don't make the playoffs and/or Marcus doesn't take the next big step JRob may want his own coach.

But he's doing a great job & based on what I've seen is a damn good HC whose proving he just never had a legit shot to succeed.

[OILERMAN]

He signed a 3 year deal, I'd bet right now he's likely to get an extension but I'd also say getting the team from the gutter back to respectable is the easiest part. Getting them from respectable to contender will be tougher and he could run into trouble barring injuries etc.....

I'd guess Mariota will play 12 more years for an over/under.

[TitanDuckFan]

What Mularkey has done may sound simple, but I don't think it will be all that easy to replicate.  And that reasoning starts with the O-line.  And if a team wants to do that, most are a year or two out from success.

It's a well known fact that too many O-Linemen are coming out of college that aren't pro-ready.  That was why I got on the Conklin train early, because Dantonio at MSU runs a pro-set offense, and Conk was his best this year.

Secondly, fans (very much like this board) scream bloody murder when GMs spend high draft picks on O-Linemen, even the right O-Linemen.  It's hard to ignore a Fournette or a Henry when you need OTs, a C and OGs to set them up.

Then they have to find those guys that can run block and pass protect.  And the coach that can get them to gel.

It's no surprise to me that Dallas and the Titans have the best RBs in the league, and the best O-Lines.  They go hand-in-hand.

[TampaTitan]

He'll have to evolve year to year imo. Adding wrinkles along the way. What's working for us now may not work exactly the same next year or the year after. Teams adjust, the league catches up...it's all cyclical. We all suspected this would be the perfect style of offense to take advantage of the smaller, quicker, more athletic defenses that have become "the thing" in today's NFL. And no doubt, it has been.

[titanruss]

I think yes. This franchise (read: the Adams family) is too used to ineptitude to take the next step strategically. 11 wins every year maybe enough for them when the money starts coming in again.

It may not matter with mariota and Robinson. Pretty confident any coach in the league could squeeze out a couple very deep playoff runs with those two. What matters is if JR recognizes that and can evaluate him on wether he does better than the mean  

So hopefully AAS puts the decision in JRs hands and he can make the smart choice. I don't think so though. I think they will just be happy being relevant and not wanting to dominate.  

My question is: who are we grooming to take over for the very old OC and DC? Losing them during a transition could be bad news for malarkey  

[Titansurf32]

1 hour ago, Number9 said:

 Mularkey is a good coach, but he's no Jeff Fisher.

give me a break

[Btowner]

I think he gets an extension. However, if he visits the game day threads, all bets are off.

Some of the stuff that gets posted there, who would want to win for a bunch of bipolar posting lunatics.

[wiscotitansfan]

49 minutes ago, Btowner said:

I think he gets an extension. However, if he visits the game day threads, all bets are off.

Some of the stuff that gets posted there, who would want to win for a bunch of bipolar posting lunatics.

Every NFL coach... If they want a job that is. All fans are blind and delusional

[Face]

9 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

He signed a 3 year deal, I'd bet right now he's likely to get an extension but I'd also say getting the team from the gutter back to respectable is the easiest part. Getting them from respectable to contender will be tougher and he could run into trouble barring injuries etc.....

I'd guess Mariota will play 12 more years for an over/under.

That 3 year deal is exactly what I was thinking with this thread. He'll either be extended or fired next year, with an extension much more likely.

I think he's been tremendous this year. I can't think of one week where the team looked bad & unprepared. They very rarely look sloppy, they play tough, smart football. And his players clearly like & respect him.

[thor]

I'll buy the Malarkey saying we will  "smack you upside the head team". But, several other coaches have come in here and said the same thing...The difference being JRob is going out and getting the correct ingredients to build that type of team...A major flaw with Webster---he knew the plan but couldn't get the correct players...

It all started with DeMarco Murray and the change of locker room culture imo and has only gotten better and better...

[OhNoMularkey]

Several years ago, I favored offenses that were run heavy, and relied on play action.  My thinking was, you win time of possession, and a rush can never be intercepted, so it's very low risk.  Most of the winning SB teams in the 90s and earlier did it that way, and it looked like the reason the NFC usually beat up on the AFC, up until the Broncos back to back wins ... and even then, the Broncos became more of a rushing team.

Then sometime in the 2000s, the dynamics changed.  Teams like the Colts and the Pats could move the chains consistently through the air and score a ton of points, with or without a consistent ground game, through high percentage, quick passing offenses.  The rules favored the pass, the QB, and the WRs.  Some defenses that physically punished passing teams' players, like Tampa 2, became less effective.

I also noticed that teams that needed to establish the run on offense could be stopped simply by stopping the run.  This was happening with the Broncos (Shanahan), Texans (Kubiak), Jaguars (Del Rio), Titans, etc.   The Texans fans were so happy with the success of Kubiak over the losing teams they had, that they kept him there pretty long, even though whenever it counted ... playoffs ... the Texans offense that relied on the run, could be stopped.

I'm very happy that the Titans are doing very well, and may even make the playoffs.  The offense has shown it can score a lot of points, or grind out an ugly win.  I've also seen glimpses in a few plays this season that the Titans can execute more of a "modern" passing offense, should they choose to do so.  They just don't really choose to do so.

I was not surprised that the long developing, deep passes into tight windows offense of the Titans was ineffective against the good DBs of the Broncos and Chiefs.  To be fair, though, they're good against most offenses.

My biggest fear is that the Titans become the Kubiak Texans ... forever a pretender, wasting Mariota's best years, in the same way maybe McNair's best years were wasted, on an old style approach to offense.  I could be wrong, but when I look at the Broncos' problems at offense, I think to myself, haven't you (Broncos fans) seen this when Kubiak was with the Texans?

With Mariota at the helm, I think the Titans can build an offense that can move the ball and score a lot of points consistently, through the air and the ground, but not the way the passing offense is, at least against good passing defenses.

Those are just my biases; I could be very wrong.

[TitanLegend]

9 minutes ago, OhNoMularkey said:

Several years ago, I favored offenses that were run heavy, and relied on play action.  My thinking was, you win time of possession, and a rush can never be intercepted, so it's very low risk.  Most of the winning SB teams in the 90s and earlier did it that way, and it looked like the reason the NFC usually beat up on the AFC, up until the Broncos back to back wins ... and even then, the Broncos became more of a rushing team.

Then sometime in the 2000s, the dynamics changed.  Teams like the Colts and the Pats could move the chains consistently through the air and score a ton of points, with or without a consistent ground game, through high percentage, quick passing offenses.  The rules favored the pass, the QB, and the WRs.  Some defenses that physically punished passing teams' players, like Tampa 2, became less effective.

I also noticed that teams that needed to establish the run on offense could be stopped simply by stopping the run.  This was happening with the Broncos (Shanahan), Texans (Kubiak), Jaguars (Del Rio), Titans, etc.   The Texans fans were so happy with the success of Kubiak over the losing teams they had, that they kept him there pretty long, even though whenever it counted ... playoffs ... the Texans offense that relied on the run, could be stopped.

I'm very happy that the Titans are doing very well, and may even make the playoffs.  The offense has shown it can score a lot of points, or grind out an ugly win.  I've also seen glimpses in a few plays this season that the Titans can execute more of a "modern" passing offense, should they choose to do so.  They just don't really choose to do so.

I was not surprised that the long developing, deep passes into tight windows offense of the Titans was ineffective against the good DBs of the Broncos and Chiefs.  To be fair, though, they're good against most offenses.

My biggest fear is that the Titans become the Kubiak Texans ... forever a pretender, wasting Mariota's best years, in the same way maybe McNair's best years were wasted, on an old style approach to offense.  I could be wrong, but when I look at the Broncos' problems at offense, I think to myself, haven't you (Broncos fans) seen this when Kubiak was with the Texans?

With Mariota at the helm, I think the Titans can build an offense that can move the ball and score a lot of points consistently, through the air and the ground, but not the way the passing offense is, at least against good passing defenses.

Those are just my biases; I could be very wrong.

The beginning of your post reminds me of the Woody Hayes quote.. "Only 3 things can happen when you pass the ball, and 2 of them are bad."

But moving on from that, there are some differences in what Mularkey/Robinson have built(well, are in the process of building) and what Shanahan/Kubiak did(and they run the same offensive system). I'll go over what I think are the most important two differences.

This post is gonna be pretty long so I'll put a TL;DR at the end if anyone wants to skip it.

#1 - The biggest difference in the systems that they run is the Shanahan offense is a zone blocking scheme. A scheme that can be very effective if you know how to build the offensive line for it(and it's a lot easier to build for than a man blocking scheme). It's why so many no name running backs gained 1,000 yards under Shanahan. He schemed yardage, his backs didn't really go out there and earn it. People think back on TD on the Broncos, and while he was a very talented back, too many gloss over the fact of what RBs did in Shanahan's offense year after year after year. Mike Anderson, Reuben Droughns, Tatum Bell are all guys that gained 1,000 yards under Shanny. Look at another guy in Alfred Morris who did really well in Shanahan's offense in Washington, but after that could only land a role as a backup for the Cowboys(I don't even think he's on the active roster in most games).

The Titans run a power run offense, mostly man blocking, which requires a lot more skill/ability out of the offensive line than a zone scheme does. We're not good at running the football because we scheme it, we're good at running the football because our offensive line is better than the opposing defensive lines we play(and Murray/Henry's abilities). The reason this is important is we can rely on our run game in crucial situations. The problem with zone blocking schemes is it relies heavily on more athletic offensive linemen, which in a lot of cases will compromise their ability to win at the point of attack, and is why a lot of zone blocking offenses fail(or at the very least aren't as successful as run games built behind powerful offensive lines) in short yardage.

I think a good example of this is watching Andy Levitre play for the Bills/Falcons compared to how he played here. Levitre failed here because we tried fitting him in a downhill/power run scheme. Now that he's in Atlanta in Kyle Shanahan's scheme(who runs the same offense his father did), he's bounced back and is playing well for them.

Another important note, is with having a powerful offensive line, is scheming against it doesn't really save you from it. You have to have a defensive line/front 7 that is good enough to beat the o-line in front of them. In dealing with a zone blocking scheme, if you can outscheme the offense, you can shut it down, regardless of what they want.

Teams that have shut our run game down have done so by frequently bringing 8-9 players in to the box, which is what allowed for Mariota's emergence. No defensive coordinator can look at our run game and just say "well if we fill these gaps when we get these looks, or blitz this guy when we get that look, we can stop their run game". He has to rely on his players being able to over power our line, and that's a really tall task against this offensive line. There might not be a front 7 in all of the NFL that can consistently shut our run game down. Pretty much every team would have to rely on bringing a safety in to the box, playing a bear defense, etc.

#2 - Another huge difference between what Kubiak did in Houston and what we potentially have here is the QB. This is not to throw hate at Matt Schaub, because I think he gets an undeserved amount of flack and was mostly a solid QB in Houston, but he was not a guy that you could rely on to take over a game/win a game with his arm(at least on a consistent basis). Even with the success in the run game that the zone blocking scheme gives you, you can't rely solely on it to win games(you can't really rely solely on one aspect of your offense to consistently win games period). This has been evident throughout, both in Houston for Kubiak and Denver/Washington for Shanahan.

Shanahan's most successful years came with Elway(Elway was on the downside of his career, but was still very good). Kubiak never reached that kind of success in Houston. Even having a guy who was decent in Matt Schaub, the best he could do is win 10-12 games in a really weak division and beat the Bengals in the playoffs.

Even in the best of situations, Schaub wasn't going to take over a game. He just wasn't going to lose it for you.

You look at who we have in Mariota and we have a guy that can take over a game, and can win one for you if need be.

And the biggest problem with Kubiak's offense in Denver is his offensive line is trash. It's not acceptable in a man or zone blocking scheme. They need to replace pretty much everyone on that line short of their center, their only saving grace on the line.

Like I said above, you can scheme against a zone blocking scheme. And if you successfully do that, you put a lot on the shoulders of the QB, and the QB probably doesn't have the added benefit that Marcus does of the defense adding an extra defender to the box, it's just more of correctly placing/coaching your front 7 to stop it in regards to Kubiak/Shanahan's offense.

So, as a TL;DR

The biggest difference between Mularkey's offense and Shanahan/Kubiak's offense is you can't scheme to stop Mularkey's run game. You have to have the front 7 to do it, or commit extra players in to the box, which opens up the passing game for our already really good QB. If you can not beat us up front, you have to rely on one on one coverage against a top 10 QB.