Martz?!?!?!

[nfoligno]

I too have read that about Saunders/Air Coryell. The playbook is bigger, but it is such that once you learn the basics, the rest is fairly simple. I think, and believe you mentioned this some as well, that his system relies less on "players being on the same page." In our current system, and in many WCO systems, there is a big emphasis on the QB and WR "seeing the same thing." If the D does X, then the WR is supposed to alter his route to Y. That means the QB and the WR both have to, w/o communication, read the defense the same. If that doesn't happen, then the QB is looking for the WR to run one route, while the WR is running another. As this system also relies on timing passes, this could be devastating. WR runs 10 yards upfield. QB expects him to break left, and throws the ball before the WR before the WR breaks, thus the DB can not defend the play. But the WR read the D different, and breaks right. Now you have a QB throwing the ball to a space not filled by a WR. Looks ugly, and often ends in a pick.

 

I don't think Saunder's system relies so much on the QB/WR making reads and thus making route adjustments. So while it is a bigger playbook, it is not as complex in the end as the system we have been running.

 

As for the OL, I would say that regardless what system we run. There is no system in football that runs well w/o good OL protection. We need to do a better job of both protecting the QB, as well as opening holes.

 

Personally, while I think our OL was dreadful, I also think playcalling really hurt the OL. Later in the year, Turner finally began to call for Cutler to rollout. Once he did this, it was more difficult for defenders to simply tee off. It is a lot easier for a defender to pass rush when they know where the QB will be. By moving the pocket, not only did it free up Cutler, but it also put such a play in the minds of defenders, and you could simply see they were not attacking the same way after.

 

On run downs, I think we were simply so predictable, it was a joke. Hell of a lot easier to stuff the run when you know it is going to be a run. OL should still be capable of getting a push, which is what you have to do on 3rd and short, but overall, I think better playcalling will improve the OL.

 

I think our OL instantly improved when we moved Williams to LT. One, he was never a good RT and two, Pace was a horrible LT. Though Shaffer is nothing special, he was an upgrade to Williams at RT, and Williams was a big upgrade to Pace at LT. Further, as awful as Omiyale was, he did improve, especially after we got Pace out of there. I would still head into the draft w/ the plan of drafting the best OL available in the 3rd, but I believe the OL we finished the season w/ (a) is better than the one we started with and ( is one a better coach may be able to get more out of.

 

Well, Saunders' offense isn't as high-risk or as unbalanced as Martz's, but it's still a very complicated one. When he was with the Redskins, there were reports that he had a 700-page playbook containing 1,800 offensive plays. Yikes.

 

However, I found a pretty good article where Saunders walks a bunch of reporters through the Coryell route terminology, and he seems to think that his playbook is actually easier to learn than others, despite being so huge. Specifically, he says that it's more of a reference book and that players don't really have to memorize it all, because the basic concepts in a Coryell offense are really simple.

 

It's an interesting point: where in West Coast offenses you have to memorize and interpret a bunch of weird terminology, in a Coryell offense you can just listen to the playcall - if you hear 741 and you're the #1 receiver, you run a 7 route. If you're the #2 receiver, you run a 4 route. That's pretty simple...it could be simple enough for our developing WRs to nail it down very quickly. Here's a choice quote from Saunders in that interview: "If you can count from zero to nine, you can be a wide receiver in our offense." I think Hester could probably handle that.

 

If we did get Saunders, though, I think it'd be worthwhile to devote a lot of attention to upgrading the run-blocking on the offensive line and bringing in a bulldozing short-yardage back. Saunders' scheme isn't great in short-yardage, and when had success in Kansas City, he had a really, really incredible o-line and Larry Johnson. We'd need better personnel to pick up 3rd-and-1 on the ground if we got Saunders, but we need that anyway.

 

[jason]

Funny thing is, while I do not want Martz, I do want another coach who does in fact run the Air Coryell system. I want Saunders.

 

I realize that if we added Saunders, he would bring a very different offense and new terminology, but at the same time, I think he does it more effectively. Martz may run a version of the Air Coryell, but I think Saunders does it better. Martz doesn't know how to run that system in conjuction w/ a run game, but Saunders does. Priest Holmes and Larry Johnson were equally effective as runners and receivers under his system, and I think the same could hold true for Forte. He could put up great numbers in such a system, under Saunders, while I think he would be forgotten in Martz' system. Further, while both (Martz/Saunders) run versions of the Air Coryell, I think Saunders does more to tweak the system to the talent he has. I also think he does more to help the QB offset the pass rush, and doesn't get his QB killed in the process.

 

I view them almost equally. In pass/run terms...

 

Martz 75/25

Saunders 55/45

 

Or something like that.

 

As defiantgiant mentioned in a post above, keep in mind that Martz made offenses on the Lions put up huge stats, with a garbage OL, nearly nonexistent RBs, and average QBs. Meanwhile, Saunders had incredible OLs, great RBs, and decent QBs. I think if you give Martz the tools Saunders had, and you'd see a marked improvement.

[defiantgiant]

I view them almost equally. In pass/run terms...

 

Martz 75/25

Saunders 55/45

 

Or something like that.

 

As defiantgiant mentioned in a post above, keep in mind that Martz made offenses on the Lions put up huge stats, with a garbage OL, nearly nonexistent RBs, and average QBs.

Huge yardage stats, yes. But also huge interception numbers, huge sack numbers, an obscene number of pass attempts, and not that many scores. Under Martz, Kitna threw for more interceptions than touchdowns every year. He did throw for 4200 yards in 2006, but he was also sacked 63 times for nearly 400 yards. If you factor sacks into the yardage gained by pass plays, Jay Cutler netted 3462 yards on 590 dropbacks this season, whereas in 2006 Kitna got 3820 on 659 pass plays. If you work that out per passing play, Cutler actually averaged MORE yards gained than Kitna did. All those sacks add up to a lot of lost yards, even if Kitna's totals were inflated by Martz calling a ridiculous number of passes.

 

Meanwhile, Saunders had incredible OLs, great RBs, and decent QBs. I think if you give Martz the tools Saunders had, and you'd see a marked improvement.

I don't think it's accurate to just point to "the tools Saunders had." After all, Martz had some pretty insane tools on the Rams - Kurt Warner at QB, Marshall Faulk at RB, Orlando Pace at LT. Any way you cut it, that's at LEAST a comparable lineup to Trent Green/Priest Holmes/Willie Roaf. Also, whenever Martz was successful, he had absolutely phenomenal wide receivers, which Saunders definitely did not. Martz had two borderline HOF receivers in St. Louis with Isaac Bruce and Torry Holt, and even in Detroit he had a generational talent in Calvin Johnson. Saunders had Eddie Kennison and Samie Parker in Kansas City. His best receiving threat was a tight end, and he built his offense around that. When Martz went to San Francisco, he proved pretty emphatically that he couldn't adjust his offense to utilize a receiving TE. I think if either of the two was dependent on a highly talented roster, it was Martz.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Martz wasn't efficient in Detroit. I think he's a great offensive mind but I don't know if he is the right fit for a team that wants to win in November/December/January. His team would be fine for the 1st week of February since you won't have to battle the elements in the Superbowl.

[defiantgiant]

Martz wasn't efficient in Detroit. I think he's a great offensive mind but I don't know if he is the right fit for a team that wants to win in November/December/January. His team would be fine for the 1st week of February since you won't have to battle the elements in the Superbowl.

Yeah, I think he's obviously a brilliant guy, and a number of coaches/coordinators have talked about how tough it is to gameplan for him, but I think he ultimately beats himself. He just takes too many chances, his scheme is too unbalanced, and he's only been successful with a once-in-a-lifetime roster. We've all been frustrated with the Tampa-2 for requiring elite talent at two or three positions in order to work, but Martz's offense required elite-or-better talent at like four or five. St. Louis had a Hall of Fame left tackle, so Martz could use tons of 7-step drops and slow-developing pass plays. They had a borderline HoF quarterback who practically never makes mistakes. They had two unbelievable wide receivers and one of the best pass-catching halfbacks of all time. As soon as he didn't have all that, his offense wasn't effective.

[nfoligno]

Huge yardage stats, yes. But also huge interception numbers, huge sack numbers, an obscene number of pass attempts, and not that many scores. Under Martz, Kitna threw for more interceptions than touchdowns every year. He did throw for 4200 yards in 2006, but he was also sacked 63 times for nearly 400 yards. If you factor sacks into the yardage gained by pass plays, Jay Cutler netted 3462 yards on 590 dropbacks this season, whereas in 2006 Kitna got 3820 on 659 pass plays. If you work that out per passing play, Cutler actually averaged MORE yards gained than Kitna did. All those sacks add up to a lot of lost yards, even if Kitna's totals were inflated by Martz calling a ridiculous number of passes.

 

Exactly. Further, while Jason keeps saying that Martz put up great stats in Detroit, I would point out he put up big passing stats, but the overall offensive stats were lacking. Is your offense really putting up great stats when it is so one-sided? Sure, Kitna had big passing totals, but it came at the expense of the rushing stats. So I think it deceptive to say his "offense" put up big numbers. That just isn't true. His passing game did, but not the running game. If you look at the offense as a whole, I don't think the stats were so great. And then you look at how, though there were big passing yardage stats, there was also a lot of offset such stats, like sacks, picks and a very weak red zone offense.

 

I don't think it's accurate to just point to "the tools Saunders had." After all, Martz had some pretty insane tools on the Rams - Kurt Warner at QB, Marshall Faulk at RB, Orlando Pace at LT. Any way you cut it, that's at LEAST a comparable lineup to Trent Green/Priest Holmes/Willie Roaf. Also, whenever Martz was successful, he had absolutely phenomenal wide receivers, which Saunders definitely did not. Martz had two borderline HOF receivers in St. Louis with Isaac Bruce and Torry Holt, and even in Detroit he had a generational talent in Calvin Johnson. Saunders had Eddie Kennison and Samie Parker in Kansas City. His best receiving threat was a tight end, and he built his offense around that. When Martz went to San Francisco, he proved pretty emphatically that he couldn't adjust his offense to utilize a receiving TE. I think if either of the two was dependent on a highly talented roster, it was Martz.

 

That is a key difference for me. Martz is simply not one who I feel can cater his system to the talent on his teeam. I think he is all about the QB and WRs. Saunders always tried to utilize the WR, and I think Kennison did well under Saunders, but he really never had the WRs to work with. Regardless of that, his offense was still electric because he was better able to utilize the talent at hand. His best receiver was a TE, and his 2nd best was a RB, thus he maximized those positions in his offense, while still getting the most out of what he had to work with at WR. Martz on the other hand, I just do not believe he can utilize talent such as this. Cutler and our WRs would likely put up big numbers, but I fear Olsen/Clark would be nearly forgotten, and Forte may become a great receiving RB, but would struggle to reach 1,000 yards rushing.

 

[nfoligno]

Agreed. He is a system coach. If he has the right pieces to run his system, he can be very dangerous. The problem comes in when he doesn't have the right pieces, and rather than adapt the system to fit what he does have, he instead tries to force those pieces into his system, even if they are not a good fit.

 

That is my concern in Chicago. We do not have close to the right pieces for his system, and like Lovie and his Tampa 2, rather than admit such and adapt, he would be yet another coach trying to force square pegs through round holes.

 

Yeah, I think he's obviously a brilliant guy, and a number of coaches/coordinators have talked about how tough it is to gameplan for him, but I think he ultimately beats himself. He just takes too many chances, his scheme is too unbalanced, and he's only been successful with a once-in-a-lifetime roster. We've all been frustrated with the Tampa-2 for requiring elite talent at two or three positions in order to work, but Martz's offense required elite-or-better talent at like four or five. St. Louis had a Hall of Fame left tackle, so Martz could use tons of 7-step drops and slow-developing pass plays. They had a borderline HoF quarterback who practically never makes mistakes. They had two unbelievable wide receivers and one of the best pass-catching halfbacks of all time. As soon as he didn't have all that, his offense wasn't effective.