balta1701-A Posted September 8, 2010 Report Share Posted September 8, 2010 In terms of Martz only getting the chance to coach bottom-of-the barrel offenses...isn't it also true that Detroit and S.F. were bottom of the league before Martz came in, and both of those offenses moved briefly up to somewhere near average with him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted September 8, 2010 Report Share Posted September 8, 2010 To me, its an issue of point of view. If you want to look at Martz in a positive light, you can look solely at the teams he took over and the improved passing yards and passing TDs. If you only look at this, Martz looks like a genius. BUT, that is not the whole picture. He didn't run the ball much, so when you reduce the rushing, the overall increased yardage was not as great. Also, while there were more TDs thrown, there were also more interceptions. May not fully offset, but it does reduce the overall scoring effect. Martz also got his QBs killed, as they would usually be among the league leaders in getting sacked. Finally, I would also point out their teams TOP suffered. The offense was largely boom or bust. Either they hit big on a drive, go three and out or turn it over. Not many sustained drives, which only further burdens the defense. For the record, I am not talking about Stl, where he had a pro bowl offense to work with. The "hope" here is there will be some differences: (a) With Tice on board, and Lovie insisting we "get off the bus running" the hope is Martz is pressed to have a more balanced attack. ( Again, with Tice on board, the hope is our OL will be better, and more capable of sustaining blocks for Cutler. © Better QB than in previous offenses, and with better overall weapons. I think A and C are very possible, but B is way up in the air. In terms of Martz only getting the chance to coach bottom-of-the barrel offenses...isn't it also true that Detroit and S.F. were bottom of the league before Martz came in, and both of those offenses moved briefly up to somewhere near average with him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 I personally think the distrust in Martz is valid. What has he done for us? Until he actually does something better than Turner during real games, everyone supporting the navy and burnt orange has reason to distrust him. I think he has potential, and serious upside, but I do see some potential pitfalls... 1. He had obvious success in STL...helps when you have HoF'ers and serious probowlers on offense 2. He had succes with Kitna in Detroit, but not so much in SF. Friends that are SF fans say that he was trying to fit square pegs in round holes...which sounds eerily similar to many a coaching mistake lead by our current regime. 3. Our O line is crap. So anything he tries could be de-fused by an aggressive pass rush, thus negating everything but a dump off. 4. He was brought in by Smith and Angelo. I do not trust them, so by default, another "pal/chum/buddy" has me worried. How, with all that said, I do thinkg Martz will be an aimprovement, and that we will see the fruits of that labor midseason on. However, the start will be tough and ugly. However, it may all be for nothing as we may finish with a por enough record to oust everyone inovled and start anew with another staff. You ask what has Martz done for us? Nothing, but then again lets give him at 1 regular season game before we rush to judgement on him. Honestly I would give him through week 3 as the lions still have a very bad,putting nicely, secondary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 No argument there! That's pretty much what I'm implying in my post. I'm more than happy to give him a shot, but there are simply no guatantees. You ask what has Martz done for us? Nothing, but then again lets give him at 1 regular season game before we rush to judgement on him. Honestly I would give him through week 3 as the lions still have a very bad,putting nicely, secondary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrizzlyBear Posted September 12, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2010 there never is a guarntee. the year the bears went and won the superbowl the headlines of chicago papers you thought with Al Harris and todd Bell sitting out the season it was over. Guess they fooled them. They went 1-3 in the preseason and then go 16-1 the remainder of the season. No Guarnatee and Pro bowls came after the season , how many did we have prior ? I dont know , but the same with the Rams, Before the GSOT even came to be, the ony Probowler I remember was Faulk. Everyone else was just new or a has been. Winning breeds pro bowls, and before Martz arrived in STL, the Rams were sorry. Plain ole sorry. Even thier Americas game stated same ole Rams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daventry Posted September 12, 2010 Report Share Posted September 12, 2010 there never is a guarntee. the year the bears went and won the superbowl the headlines of chicago papers you thought with Al Harris and todd Bell sitting out the season it was over. Guess they fooled them. They went 1-3 in the preseason and then go 16-1 the remainder of the season. No Guarnatee and Pro bowls came after the season , how many did we have prior ? I dont know , but the same with the Rams, Before the GSOT even came to be, the ony Probowler I remember was Faulk. Everyone else was just new or a has been. Winning breeds pro bowls, and before Martz arrived in STL, the Rams were sorry. Plain ole sorry. Even thier Americas game stated same ole Rams. There never is a guarantee, but let's not confuse this team with the 84/85 Bears, as I noticed the Bears official site seemed to be doing as well recently with their comparison of the 85 and current teams poor preseason record. The 84 Bears went deep in the playoffs and lost to a tough 49ers team. This team sucked last year, this year have made some limited improvements in personnel, changed various coordinators, and enter the year with little sign of consistency or excellence. If this team even had a winning record it would have to be considered a success, and if they made it to the playoffs it would have to be the biggest surprise in the NFL. I am a Bears fan, but let's be realistic. I hope I am wrong, but I am prepared to be thrilled with a winning record this year..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted September 12, 2010 Report Share Posted September 12, 2010 there never is a guarntee. the year the bears went and won the superbowl the headlines of chicago papers you thought with Al Harris and todd Bell sitting out the season it was over. Guess they fooled them. They went 1-3 in the preseason and then go 16-1 the remainder of the season. No Guarnatee and Pro bowls came after the season , how many did we have prior ? I dont know , but the same with the Rams, Before the GSOT even came to be, the ony Probowler I remember was Faulk. Everyone else was just new or a has been. Winning breeds pro bowls, and before Martz arrived in STL, the Rams were sorry. Plain ole sorry. Even thier Americas game stated same ole Rams. Anyone remember how good of a coach Dick Vermiel was? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.