Are You Ready for Some Football - Week 8 - Page 16

reismark · October 28, 2003, 13:13

Looking at that schedule, the only traps that might prevent Kansas City from going undefeated are going into Mile High (and might I add, anyone who insists that I call a stadium by its corporate name can go **** themselves) and going into the Metrodome. I'd watch out for the game at Paul Brown though as well - Lewis' Bengals are a team that can sneak up on people. Other than that, the Arrowhead faithful are gonna have a lot to cheer about...

And yes, the Chargers doth suck. I'd give Marty his walking papers after the season if I were GM down there, 'cause it's just not working out. This season has shown that the 6-2 start last year was an aberration.

Dis · October 28, 2003, 17:58

Woohoo!!

I won week 8 of Lombardi!!

My first win, I have to gloat a little

Tuberski · October 28, 2003, 18:24

Oakland will beat the Chiefs. The thing about the AFC West is that even the sucky teams in the division play division foes well.

ACK!

Japher · October 28, 2003, 18:28

Tuberski, when did you change your name?...

The Raiders suck, and now with Gannon out and who knows how many more players will get the boot because of this performance inhancer deal-i-o

Tuberski · October 28, 2003, 18:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher
Tuberski, when did you change your name?...

The Raiders suck, and now with Gannon out and who knows how many more players will get the boot because of this performance inhancer deal-i-o

Last week.

Like I said, fairly often the records don't matter, this is the Chiefs-Raiders we're talking about.

If you recall correctly, the Raiders only lost by 1 yard last Monday night......with the second string QB.

ACK!

Dis · October 28, 2003, 18:55

and that second string QB is their future.

I have a feeling we might not see Gannon anymore this year. I'm almost prepared to drop him from my lineup.

Imran Siddiqui · October 28, 2003, 19:49

Quote:

Take Favre or Elway and put them in with an o-line like the Vicking use to have or the Niners have now (left side bashing only) and watch them fall apart.

FARVE? (since you got schooled for Elway

). Farve was an amazing QB, who really didn't have an amazing OL. Sure it was good, but no better than any above average team.

Quote:

Shoot, I meant ol' what's his face from Dallas, I always confuse them... uh, Aikmen... Hate 'em both the same.

Dallas under Johnson never played a West Coast Offense. They did have a terrific OL though.

However, if you say that every QB with a great OL has to be downgraded, then the question is how much and what was more responsible for success the OL or the QB? And it isn't like you have SuperBowl Champs with bad OLs!

Quote:

My point was that if Walsh didn't have the defense he had, having a great offense alone wouldn't have won him 3 Super Bowls. The Chargers of the Coryell era are the prime example. And the same thing goes for Martz. You can be an offensive genious all you want, but if you don't have a defense, you're not going to win many if any Super Bowls.

So what is your point on Martz not being an offensive genius? Oh, and btw, the Rams D this year is one of the best in the league (since Martz has been focusing on building the D up).

Remember he was one kick from winning a SB in 2001, and for the past two years he's been dealing with many injuries, especially to his two star players.

Quote:

Of course he made a self fulfilling prophecy when he said something to the effect that when he has the better players, he is the better coach.

And it goes the other way, the more successful the team the 'better' the coach is percieved. The best coaches create new systems and get the most out of their guys.

Quote:

Just tryin to say that even the geniuses with the best schemes have trouble without the proper personnel to carry out their plan.

Well duh! It takes a long time to get your personell in place. Jimmy Johnson in particular had a good amount of time to get HIS players in because the Boys were so bad when he got there. In Miami he was under pressure to win NOW, and he couldn't get his type of player in (especially in RB). The same thing with Spurrier, give him some time to get his guys in. Oh, and he hasn't been running the Fun n' Gun in Washington. Nothing close.

Quote:

Parcells didn't win the Super Bowl with the Patriots.

Yeah, but the turnaround was very impressive. Same with the Jets... their turnaround was almost miraculous.

badams52 · October 29, 2003, 02:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Deathtongue
Like I said, fairly often the records don't matter, this is the Chiefs-Raiders we're talking about.

If you recall correctly, the Raiders only lost by 1 yard last Monday night......with the second string QB.

Good to see at least one person understands the difficulty of going through the season undefeated. Just takes 1 week for KC to be off, not get that game winning Dante Hall return, or be caught by the TO bug (if you look it up, you'd see they are an incredible +18 at the half way mark!). Of course the great teams cause turnovers, but +18 is astounding!

Quote:

So what is your point on Martz not being an offensive genius?

Remember he was one kick from winning a SB in 2001, and for the past two years he's been dealing with many injuries, especially to his two star players.

Well 2 points I have about calling Martz a genius. #1 it's too early in his career to just hand him the genius moniker and #2 you said it yourself in your quote. He has been dealing with many injuries which has made his offense not as spectacular. In my opinion, an offensive genious should excel without having as many top flight athletes as Martz has had. You never hear anyone talking about the genious of the Colts head coaches or offensive coordinator because they have the players to put up a heap load of points.

You say he was within a kick form winning SB 2001, but I say it should have never gotten to that. With his team, the Patriots shouldn't have even been in the game by then. I don't think Martz has been unfairly criticized for his play calling in that game and the ones before.

Quote:

Well duh! It takes a long time to get your personell in place. Jimmy Johnson in particular had a good amount of time to get HIS players in because the Boys were so bad when he got there. In Miami he was under pressure to win NOW, and he couldn't get his type of player in (especially in RB). The same thing with Spurrier, give him some time to get his guys in. Oh, and he hasn't been running the Fun n' Gun in Washington. Nothing close.

so now you're saying a coach needs to have his personnel to succeed. That's exactly my point, except instead of "his" personnel, I would claim it to be good to great personnel. A coach will never be considered great unless he has the players to win with. If Martz was the offensive coordinator for a team without so many weapons, I would say he wouldn't be seen as the offensive guru that he is.

Johnson was successful in Dallas because of a little trade to Minnesota which gave him many high draft picks for a waste of a back in Hershel Walker and he selected the right players that helped create a dynasty.

And I laugh whenever I think of Spurrier and I doubt he will ever bring glory to Washington. He was great in college cause he lived in an uneven playing field. Of course he knew how to use his players and coach them well, but now that he's in a more even playing field and against coaches more his equal (and actually with the management in Washington I would claim that he is actually below the league standard in players) he hasn't succeeded. Maybe he will prove me wrong.

Imran Siddiqui · October 29, 2003, 17:58

Quote:

#1 it's too early in his career to just hand him the genius moniker and #2 you said it yourself in your quote. He has been dealing with many injuries which has made his offense not as spectacular. In my opinion, an offensive genious should excel without having as many top flight athletes as Martz has had.

I don't think it is too early in his career. In his position as offensive coordinator and head coach he has shown an explosive offense.

#2, you miss my point, even WITH the injuries his offenses have been good (9th in yardage last year with all the problems that team had). However, because of the injuries he hasn't been winning Superbowls. Fact of the matter is that you may put up some good stats with injuries to your starters, but you won't go win all that many games with them... even if your Lombardi. Your backups are usually NOT the 'average' starting player. There is usually a reason why they are a backup with your team (ie, no other team signed them).

Offensive geniuses aren't required to be the #1 offense in the league with Detroit Lion talent. They should have a high ranked offense with at least mid-level talent.

Look at it this way, Bulger really isn't anything special as a QB. The system around him has really made him a superstar, and that is Martz's baby. We may also say the same things for Warner (although Warner did have a great talent for being absurdly accurate), that he thrived because of his system.

Quote:

so now you're saying a coach needs to have his personnel to succeed. That's exactly my point, except instead of "his" personnel, I would claim it to be good to great personnel.

No, I think you are wrong. He doesn't need 'good to great' personnel, just HIS style of personnel. Look at Parcells. He doesn't have 'good to great' players, he has his type of guys. Role players that play well for him in his type of system.

Tuberski · October 29, 2003, 19:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, I think you are wrong. He doesn't need 'good to great' personnel, just HIS style of personnel. Look at Parcells. He doesn't have 'good to great' players, he has his type of guys. Role players that play well for him in his type of system.

Parcell's in fact does not have the players to fit his system.

His linebackers and D-lineman are all smaller than he likes.

He also prefers the 3-4, but with the talent he has they play a 4-3 defense.

That's what makes him a good coach, fitting his system to the players at hand.

ACK!

Imran Siddiqui · October 29, 2003, 19:15

Quote:

Parcell's in fact does not have the players to fit his system.

No, I'm not talking about Dallas. I'm talking about when he has a few years at a place (like NE and NY).

Ben Kenobi · October 29, 2003, 21:37

Quote:

boy, the Chargers really suck

It must be if they are talking about putting Flutie back in for Brees.

Flutie's a good QB, and the reason I like the Chargers since he won a Grey Cup for my Lions way out here in BC.

I wonder what Schottenheimer will do to try to wake up Brees? I know he likes to run much more than the pass, but there were so many times on MNF that he should of passed, and instead they kept running into that stifling Miami d.

Still nice to get a chance to watch a game, they never cover the Chargers up here in Canada.

badams52 · October 30, 2003, 01:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I don't think it is too early in his career. In his position as offensive coordinator and head coach he has shown an explosive offense.

Martz has 3+ seasons of NFL offensive coordinator/head coach experience. Not a SINGLE man with that much experience will ever be elected into the football hall of fame. I'll wait till he gets a few years under his belt and experience with different players to label him as a genius. Till he can prove himself like Walsh, Landry, Shula, Parcells, or even Vermeil, I just cannot justify calling him a genius. And last year didn't show very well for Martz.

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Offensive geniuses aren't required to be the #1 offense in the league with Detroit Lion talent. They should have a high ranked offense with at least mid-level talent.

Never said a #1 offense with Detroit Lion talent was needed to be considered a genius. I said "an offensive genious should excel without having as many top flight athletes as Martz has had." I think that a high ranked offense with mid-level talent would fit that mold. Take out Holt and Faulk, and maybe you have an offense with mid-level talent, maybe more if given average replacement players.

Martz has had Warner/Bulger (of course I don't think they're great quarterbacks, but they have accuracy and when Warner lost it, the team fluttered), Faulk (one of the best running backs in NFL history when healthy), Bruce, Holt, Hakim (who starts on another team now). With talent like that, I believe that any good offensive coordinator would put up lots of points on the board. The fact that Martz broke records it a testament to having an excellent offensive mind. That I don't deny, but I cannot go above that to call him a genius, yet.

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
He doesn't need 'good to great' personnel, just HIS style of personnel.

Show me a team where the great coach has players to fit his style, and I'll show you a team that has good to great players. I'm not saying he needs superstars like Moss, Farve, Sapp, etc., just good to great players.

Imran Siddiqui · October 30, 2003, 01:55

Quote:

Not a SINGLE man with that much experience will ever be elected into the football hall of fame. I'll wait till he gets a few years under his belt and experience with different players to label him as a genius.

People were labeling Walsh 'The Genius' after the 49ers won the Superbowl in his 3rd year. Why then is Martz's 3+ years too few?

Quote:

I said "an offensive genious should excel without having as many top flight athletes as Martz has had." I think that a high ranked offense with mid-level talent would fit that mold. Take out Holt and Faulk, and maybe you have an offense with mid-level talent, maybe more given average players.

Faulk has been out for plenty of time during Martz's tenure as Rams O-Coord and Head Coach. Holt has only been the best reciever lately, before that it was Bruce and he's been hurt a bit before too.

The offense still chugs along at a nice clip.

Quote:

Martz has had Warner/Bulger (of course I don't think they're great quarterbacks, but they have accuracy and when Warner lost it, the team fluttered), Faulk (one of the best running backs in NFL history when healthy), Bruce, Holt, Hakim (who starts on another team now). With talent like that, I believe that any good offensive coordinator would put up lots of points on the board.

I'm not sure about that. I mean plenty of those players were passed over by other teams (Warner and Faulk in particular). Was it better talent or great coaching that coaxed that talent out? After all one of the most talented QBs in NFL history was Jeff George, but without the right coaching we have only glimpses of what he could have become.

Quote:

Show me a team where the great coach has players to fit his style, and I'll show you a team that has good to great players. I'm not saying he needs superstars like Moss, Farve, Sapp, etc., just good to great players.

Being somewhat of Jets fan, I'd say that the 1998 team that went to the AFC Championship Game did not have mostly good to great players. They had some good players (Martin, Johnson), but most were average.

badams52 · October 30, 2003, 19:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
People were labeling Walsh 'The Genius' after the 49ers won the Superbowl in his 3rd year. Why then is Martz's 3+ years too few?

Well, I maybe stupid, but after 3 years I wasn't one of those people labelling Walsh a genius.

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'm not sure about that. I mean plenty of those players were passed over by other teams (Warner and Faulk in particular). Was it better talent or great coaching that coaxed that talent out? After all one of the most talented QBs in NFL history was Jeff George, but without the right coaching we have only glimpses of what he could have become.

Faulk??? He was considered an excellent snd versitile back when he was traded from Indianapolis to the Rams. The year before he was traded he got 1300 yards rushing and 900 yards receiving. He was the Colts offense at the time. And well, we all know the story of Warner who was a nobody till he became the starter.

I would say in the Rams case, the talent was already there. I don't believe it's a coincidence that the year Faulk became their running back, their offense became explosive. I mean, we've seen how the offense hasn't been as good without Faulk.

Martz came in at a good time, but he also used his players well. I'm just not ready to call him a genius given the level of talent he's had to work with.

And with Jeff George, I just believe he wasn't good enough to be an excellent pro QB. There are many out there who have the "talent" who don't pan out. Look at all the first round draft choices who never make it. And I'm not about to place the blame on all those players non performance on the coaches.

Imran Siddiqui · October 30, 2003, 20:04

Quote:

Faulk??? He was considered an excellent snd versitile back when he was traded from Indianapolis to the Rams.

He was dealt wasn't he? An excellent and versatile back was obviously not considered that great by the Colts at the time.

Quote:

I would say in the Rams case, the talent was already there. I don't believe it's a coincidence that the year Faulk became their running back, their offense became explosive. I mean, we've seen how the offense hasn't been as good without Faulk.

It hasn't been as good, but it definetly has been pretty damned good. The Rams right now look amazing on O and Faulk is no where to be seen.

I'm not sure you could make the case the 'talent was there' for the Rams. They brought IN the talent. Sure they had Bruce, but the rest of the 'stars' were signed or drafted. It isn't just the head coach that helps with that, the coordinators have a HUGE say (especially with a coach like Vermeil).

Quote:

And I'm not about to place the blame on all those players non performance on the coaches.

I think more than 50%, at least, fail due to the failures of their first head coach.

SlowwHand · October 30, 2003, 20:18

Tell you one thing, my opinion of Michael Vick has bottomed out.
Now he's telling the Falcon's he'll return sometime in December.
Wimp. Hell.

Imran Siddiqui · October 30, 2003, 20:32

Quote:

Now he's telling the Falcon's he'll return sometime in December.
Wimp. Hell.

Yes, because McNabb, who had the same procedure and returned early has really looked like the same player since he's been back

.

Vick is smarter than McNabb, that's for sure.

SlowwHand · October 30, 2003, 20:43

I picked up a stick in the yard that was smarter than McNabb.
Is that the comparison your really want to use?

Imran Siddiqui · October 30, 2003, 20:49

Quote:

I picked up a stick in the yard that was smarter than McNabb.
Is that the comparison your really want to use?

I picked up a stick in the yard smarter than you... so?

And you say that and would love to have him as your QB, and you know it

.

McNabb may suck this year, but he's a better QB than Carter, anyday.

SlowwHand · October 30, 2003, 20:53

Imran, you've been drinking again, haven't you?

Tuberski · October 30, 2003, 21:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

I picked up a stick in the yard that was smarter than McNabb.
Is that the comparison your really want to use?

I picked up a stick in the yard smarter than you... so?

And you say that and would love to have him as your QB, and you know it

.

McNabb may suck this year, but he's a better QB than Carter, anyday.

And yet, relatively speaking, I should have picked Carter in the first round.

ACK!

reismark · October 30, 2003, 22:41

Here's my opinion on Vick: He's absolutely right. If the Falcons were 5-2 or 3-4 instead of 1-6, I think Vick would have been back on the field by now. The truth is that not even Vick can save them now - there's just too many problems with the rest of the team that his absence have exposed. If the season is lost, then there's no ****ing value whatsoever in rushing him back.

badams52 · October 31, 2003, 16:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[Faulk] was dealt wasn't he? An excellent and versatile back was obviously not considered that great by the Colts at the time.

Right, excellent backs are never traded are they? Dickerson, Ricky Williams, Jerome Bettis. Maybe it doesn't happen often, but teams do trade away star players from time to time.

The Colts traded him cause they wanted Edgerrin James and to unload a heap of money and while doing do, they got the Rams 2nd and 5th round draft choices. I think the Colts made out quite well with the deal, and I think they also knew about Faulk's potential.

He was their leading rusher and receiver in his last year with them and since his move to the Rams, he's put up similar numbers to that year. Sure they're a little better than what he got in Indianapolis, but they are quite similar.

Do you still not think Indianapolis knew Faulk was a great back? I don't know about you, but if I had one player who had the most receptions, receiving yards and rushing yards for my team by far, I sure as hell know that that player is of excellent quality and very valuable. And when I learned he was traded, I was very happy for the Rams as well knowing they just got an excellent addition to their offense. It was no surpirse to me what Faulk did when he began playing for the Rams.

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'm not sure you could make the case the 'talent was there' for the Rams. They brought IN the talent. Sure they had Bruce, but the rest of the 'stars' were signed or drafted. It isn't just the head coach that helps with that, the coordinators have a HUGE say (especially with a coach like Vermeil).

Looking at the history of the building of the Rams, you are correct that much of the top talent was drafted or aquired before that marvelous year. But they had Hakim, Bruce, Prohl, Warner (though they had no idea he could run the offense at the time), and mostly the same backups from before. They got Trent Green (who became injured before the regular season), Faulk (an excellent pick up), and Holt (from the draft I think). And certainly the coaching staff is part of the equation for who is picked up.

So they did make some great off-season moves to pick up the talent they needed, but with a season schedule like they had, and all the weapons they had, I'm not going to call Martz a genius. They dominated in the regular season the same way Nebraska or Miami dominates in their college seasons. The other teams just couldn't match up with their speed.

Once the Rams got to the playoffs, they struggled to win games. They struggled to get by Tampa and had a very close and exciting game against the Titans. This tells me that while they were an excellent team, they weren't the Bears of 85 of the Niners of 89 who both danced all over the other teams in the season and the play-offs.

Good as they were, and make no mistake, Martz is an excellent OC and coach for getting his talent to the Super Bowl, I'm not going to be able to call him a genius just for the work he's done with the Rams. When he came in, certainly he had a hand in picking up the extra talent, but with all the weapons the Rams have, any coach could be made to look good. Just look at Barry Switzer and the Cowboys team he inherited. If Martz can continue to do well, then maybe I'd call him a genius.

You know, there's another coach who does quite well with his offenses year after year and some people call him the mastermind, but I'm not about to call him that considering the talent he's been able to work with. As great as a coach as Shanahan has been, he's also had the offensive talent to pull it off.

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think more than 50%, at least, fail due to the failures of their first head coach.

Then we'll have to disagree on that one. I'm not about to say that most players said to have potential and later fail do so because of their first head coach.

badams52 · October 31, 2003, 16:35

Did any one else notice that the Raiders, who are starting their back-up quarterback, are STILL favored in a road game at Detroit? Didn't we learn anything from the Broncos playing in a similar situation against Baltimore a couple of weeks ago? At least the Bronco's weren't favored.

I guess that says something about how people feel about Detroit's abilities.

Imran Siddiqui · October 31, 2003, 17:58

Ah, a good football discussion, me likey

.

Quote:

Right, excellent backs are never traded are they? Dickerson, Ricky Williams, Jerome Bettis. Maybe it doesn't happen often, but teams do trade away star players from time to time.

I would say in everyone of those cases the RB was percieved as a 'problem' or overrated. Especially with the Ricky Williams case, the Saints saw him as overrated and a problem player. That is why they drafted McAllister. I don't know why Dickerson was dealt.

And was Bettis a star before he was traded? I don't remember that.

I think generally star backs are not dealt unless the dealing team thinks they are overrated or just not worth it.

Quote:

He was their leading rusher and receiver in his last year with them and since his move to the Rams, he's put up similar numbers to that year. Sure they're a little better than what he got in Indianapolis, but they are quite similar.

I'm sure Indy believed him to be not as good as the numbers. At the time I thought it was a boneheaded move. Sure the Colts picked up James (and maybe were thinking about Williams), but they had to think something was wrong with Faulk if they dealt him for so little (comparatively).

I mean, it'd be like the Ravens trading Jamal Lewis to the Lions in order to get the #1 pick in the draft so they could draft a star RB (pick one). Unless the Ravens wer down on Lewis, it doesn't make sense.

--
More later