There are 143 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Marc Trestman New Bears HC

  • Jcool
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 13,332
Originally posted by StOnEy333:
So you're putting him on a pedestal because he lost his superstar RB's and decided to just throw it to Jerry all season? lol

I don't get why because of one press conference and one throw away line by Eddie Debartolo this guy is looked upon like he was the one who ruined the 49ers.
Originally posted by Jcool:
Originally posted by StOnEy333:
So you're putting him on a pedestal because he lost his superstar RB's and decided to just throw it to Jerry all season? lol

I don't get why because of one press conference and one throw away line by Eddie Debartolo this guy is looked upon like he was the one who ruined the 49ers.

I vividly remember being frustrated with his play-calling when he was running it. Was never a fan of his no matter where he was.
  • Jcool
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 13,332
Originally posted by StOnEy333:
Originally posted by Jcool:
Originally posted by StOnEy333:
So you're putting him on a pedestal because he lost his superstar RB's and decided to just throw it to Jerry all season? lol

I don't get why because of one press conference and one throw away line by Eddie Debartolo this guy is looked upon like he was the one who ruined the 49ers.

I vividly remember being frustrated with his play-calling when he was running it. Was never a fan of his no matter where he was.

Well i bet your a rare person being upset with an offense that averaged 28 ppg in 1995 and 24 ppg in 1996. People hate Pete Caroll now because he is the Seahawks coach but everyone wanted him here after his stint at USC, despite the fact in losses to Green Bay in the playoffs the defense gave up 27 points 1994 and 35 the next year. No one goes oh that Pete Caroll he was sooo bad for the 49ers defense... Yet everyone thinks Trestman was the worst ever.
Originally posted by Jcool:
Originally posted by StOnEy333:
Originally posted by Jcool:
Originally posted by StOnEy333:
So you're putting him on a pedestal because he lost his superstar RB's and decided to just throw it to Jerry all season? lol

I don't get why because of one press conference and one throw away line by Eddie Debartolo this guy is looked upon like he was the one who ruined the 49ers.

I vividly remember being frustrated with his play-calling when he was running it. Was never a fan of his no matter where he was.

Well i bet your a rare person being upset with an offense that averaged 28 ppg in 1995 and 24 ppg in 1996. People hate Pete Caroll now because he is the Seahawks coach but everyone wanted him here after his stint at USC, despite the fact in losses to Green Bay in the playoffs the defense gave up 27 points 1994 and 35 the next year. No one goes oh that Pete Caroll he was sooo bad for the 49ers defense... Yet everyone thinks Trestman was the worst ever.

You're giving way too much credit to Trestman for all that. He didn't build the offense and players into what they were. He took over one of the most powerful offenses in NFL history with some of the greatest players of all time on it. They were going to make s**t happen no matter who was calling plays. But if you remember those seasons and actual playcalling, you would remember a lot of times when they called stupid f**king s**t that made you wonder WTF was going on out there. Uncharacteristic stuff would be done at ridiculous points in the game. Things you never saw in the past with the same players under different coaching. All he needed to do was do exactly what the guys before him were doing, but he tried to tweek it and make it his own.


Just curious, but you did watch all the games back then, right? I wouldn't think you would just look at the stats and think it was this or that. Because if you did watch, I can't how see how anybody would come away from it all thinking Trestman was hot s**t.
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
How exactly did they "downgrade" when they had the #1 offense in the NFL with Trestman calling the plays.


It's not Trestman's fault that Policy couldn't get Ricky Watters re-signed. That single loss was enough to kill the 49ers Superbowl chances as they were left with Derek "3.1 yards and a cloud of dust" Loville as their solution at RB.


In one season, 49ers went from Ricky Watters(FA) and Bar None Floyd(injury) to Derek Loville and Adam Walker....that's one hell of a downgrade.


With Trestman calling the plays, Jerry Rice ended up having his all-time best season, setting the NFL record for receiving yards.

The 49ers were DOMINANT offensively in 1994. No one could stop the 49ers from scoring and they scored 35 -- 40+ points in many games that year. Heck, I'll argue that offense was the best in NFL history.

Now no doubt the loss of Watters contributed to the difference of how the offense played the following season and I do feel the niners would've repeated as champs if Watters stayed with us...but the question relies was Watters THAT MUCH of a difference maker in our offense? I'm not so sure.

Even though Loville wasn't as good as Watters, he had talent. From what I remember he was capable of and did make plays running the ball. Its just that it appeared to me that Trestman didn't do a better job of providing more offensive balance.
  • Jcool
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 13,332
Originally posted by StOnEy333:
You're giving way too much credit to Trestman for all that. He didn't build the offense and players into what they were. He took over one of the most powerful offenses in NFL history with some of the greatest players of all time on it. They were going to make s**t happen no matter who was calling plays. But if you remember those seasons and actual playcalling, you would remember a lot of times when they called stupid f**king s**t that made you wonder WTF was going on out there. Uncharacteristic stuff would be done at ridiculous points in the game. Things you never saw in the past with the same players under different coaching. All he needed to do was do exactly what the guys before him were doing, but he tried to tweek it and make it his own.


Just curious, but you did watch all the games back then, right? I wouldn't think you would just look at the stats and think it was this or that. Because if you did watch, I can't how see how anybody would come away from it all thinking Trestman was hot s**t.

No I didn't watch all the games... I don't live in California and with no video streaming then, could only watch the one national game. But no that 1995 was not "one of the most powerful ever" 1994 was but not in 1995. We had the #1 passing offense and #23 rushing offense. The calling was "stupid" because we lost to GB, just like Roman getting the blame for a bad last series no one would be talking about if Kaep had scored a TD. We didn't have a complete team after the Super Bowl because we didn't resign Ricky Watters and for some reason figured Derek Loville was a suitable replacement. You could say Trestman was a product of the talent on the 49ers. Steve Young and Jerry Rice are HOF players but he also had a #1 offense in Oakland and was the OC on the first top 15 offense in AZ history (took 9 more years to have another top 15 offense).
  • Jcool
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 13,332
Originally posted by ninersoul:
The 49ers were DOMINANT offensively in 1994. No one could stop the 49ers from scoring and they scored 35 -- 40+ points in many games that year. Heck, I'll argue that offense was the best in NFL history.

Now no doubt the loss of Watters contributed to the difference of how the offense played the following season and I do feel the niners would've repeated as champs if Watters stayed with us...but the question relies was Watters THAT MUCH of a difference maker in our offense? I'm not so sure.

Even though Loville wasn't as good as Watters, he had talent. From what I remember he was capable of and did make plays running the ball. Its just that it appeared to me that Trestman didn't do a better job of providing more offensive balance.

After he left SF he had 7803 yards and 53 tds (6 thousand yard seasons in 7 years & 2 pro bowl trips). His first two years in Philly he had 2684 yards and 24 tds with 111 receptions for 878 yards.
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by Wrathman:
He $ucks! Good luck to the Bears, they're going to need it.

I think they improve. Trestman is an absolute offensive genius. He was the first guy Harbaugh contacted for the 49ers OC position but all he wanted was a head coaching job. Trestman already knows Cutler as he trained him prior to the draft when Cutler was coming out of Vanderbilt. If that aging defense can hold up, the offense is going to light teams up, especially with lousy defenses like the Lions and Packers in their division.

Going to load up on some Bears players in fantasy football next season.

A few weeks back Steve Young was on KNBR and the Trestman's name came up. Steve said he would be a great HC in the NFL and deserved a shot somewhere. Guess he has his shot now.
Originally posted by ninersoul:
The 49ers were DOMINANT offensively in 1994. No one could stop the 49ers from scoring and they scored 35 -- 40+ points in many games that year. Heck, I'll argue that offense was the best in NFL history.

Now no doubt the loss of Watters contributed to the difference of how the offense played the following season and I do feel the niners would've repeated as champs if Watters stayed with us...but the question relies was Watters THAT MUCH of a difference maker in our offense? I'm not so sure.

Even though Loville wasn't as good as Watters, he had talent. From what I remember he was capable of and did make plays running the ball. Its just that it appeared to me that Trestman didn't do a better job of providing more offensive balance.

No, Trestman utilized Loville about as well as he could have been utilized. The Packers back then basically beat up the 49ers, with or without Trestman, simply because the 49ers didn't have a running game, the one year they had a running game, they ended up beating Green Bay. The loss of Watters was catastrophic, it allowed teams to simply defend the pass and dare the 49ers to run, at which point Loville failed to get much of anything done. The offense was still explosive but far too one dimensional and the Packers had a great defense that could handle the 49ers passing game.


Trestman did draw up an excellent gameplan against the Cowboys, got major kudo's for it as the 49ers beat Dallas in 1995, with Grbac starting at QB, with Deion playing for Dallas, the eventual Superbowl Champions. He got put into a tough situation with ridiculous expectations and did the best he could have. Later on he went to help guys like Scott Mitchell and Jake Plummer have their all-time best NFL seasons.
Originally posted by Jcool:
Originally posted by StOnEy333:
You're giving way too much credit to Trestman for all that. He didn't build the offense and players into what they were. He took over one of the most powerful offenses in NFL history with some of the greatest players of all time on it. They were going to make s**t happen no matter who was calling plays. But if you remember those seasons and actual playcalling, you would remember a lot of times when they called stupid f**king s**t that made you wonder WTF was going on out there. Uncharacteristic stuff would be done at ridiculous points in the game. Things you never saw in the past with the same players under different coaching. All he needed to do was do exactly what the guys before him were doing, but he tried to tweek it and make it his own.


Just curious, but you did watch all the games back then, right? I wouldn't think you would just look at the stats and think it was this or that. Because if you did watch, I can't how see how anybody would come away from it all thinking Trestman was hot s**t.

No I didn't watch all the games... I don't live in California and with no video streaming then, could only watch the one national game. But no that 1995 was not "one of the most powerful ever" 1994 was but not in 1995. We had the #1 passing offense and #23 rushing offense. The calling was "stupid" because we lost to GB, just like Roman getting the blame for a bad last series no one would be talking about if Kaep had scored a TD. We didn't have a complete team after the Super Bowl because we didn't resign Ricky Watters and for some reason figured Derek Loville was a suitable replacement. You could say Trestman was a product of the talent on the 49ers. Steve Young and Jerry Rice are HOF players but he also had a #1 offense in Oakland and was the OC on the first top 15 offense in AZ history (took 9 more years to have another top 15 offense).

My bad. I didn't think somebody would actually try to debate something they didn't even watch. Stats don't tell the whole story. I have zero interest in debating this topic with you.
Originally posted by ninersoul:
The 49ers were DOMINANT offensively in 1994. No one could stop the 49ers from scoring and they scored 35 -- 40+ points in many games that year. Heck, I'll argue that offense was the best in NFL history.

Now no doubt the loss of Watters contributed to the difference of how the offense played the following season and I do feel the niners would've repeated as champs if Watters stayed with us...but the question relies was Watters THAT MUCH of a difference maker in our offense? I'm not so sure.

Even though Loville wasn't as good as Watters, he had talent. From what I remember he was capable of and did make plays running the ball. Its just that it appeared to me that Trestman didn't do a better job of providing more offensive balance.
I do believe Watters made that much of a difference. He was used in San Francisco in ways that he was never used again. They often lined Ricky Watters up in the slot and out wide as a receiver, creating an instant mismatch and I believe Watters was the number 2 receiver behind Jerry Rice. Throw in his ability to run the ball as well as William Floyd's and you had an offensive juggernaut. When you take away the threat of that run, we turn into a team like the 2011-2012 Green Bay Packers, or those Miami Dolphin teams under Dan Marino.

Funny thing is, we simply caught a bad matchup in 1995 with the Packers. Had we beaten the Falcons at the end of the season, we would've been the number 1 seed, avoided the Packers altogether, and in all likelihood would've won another Super Bowl.
Originally posted by Chico:
Originally posted by NinerJedi:
Trestman was a terrible OC for us. The stats don't tell everything. He did not utilize Rice effectively and called many questionable plays. I remember Walsh looking over his shoulder trying to help him out.

Good luck to Trestman though. He's been in football for a long time so maybe he got better.

that's right...I will never forget Walsh looking over his shoulder in the booth. I don't know how this guy got a HC job when he sucked as an OC for the 49ers. In fact, i don't recall his name ever coming up in the league as a great OC anywhere. He must be related to the Bears somehow.

I think he got the job by going to Canada, and owning the CFL as a head coach.
Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
I do believe Watters made that much of a difference. He was used in San Francisco in ways that he was never used again. They often lined Ricky Watters up in the slot and out wide as a receiver, creating an instant mismatch and I believe Watters was the number 2 receiver behind Jerry Rice. Throw in his ability to run the ball as well as William Floyd's and you had an offensive juggernaut. When you take away the threat of that run, we turn into a team like the 2011-2012 Green Bay Packers, or those Miami Dolphin teams under Dan Marino.

Funny thing is, we simply caught a bad matchup in 1995 with the Packers. Had we beaten the Falcons at the end of the season, we would've been the number 1 seed, avoided the Packers altogether, and in all likelihood would've won another Super Bowl.

Yup. I do remember the 49ers losing to Atlanta in week 17. I KNEW something wasn't right and the season wasn't probably gonna end well for the 49ers when that happened.

I think the INSIDE KNOWLEDGE that Mike Holmgren had on the 49ers was just as much and if not, more of a factor of the Packers upsetting the 49ers in the Divisional playoff round in '95. The 49ers always had enough talent to defeat the Packers. I just think they lost most of those matchups from being outcoached and receiving screwed up and no calls by the refs.
[ Edited by ninersoul on Feb 18, 2013 at 7:19 AM ]
Originally posted by Jcool:
After he left SF he had 7803 yards and 53 tds (6 thousand yard seasons in 7 years & 2 pro bowl trips). His first two years in Philly he had 2684 yards and 24 tds with 111 receptions for 878 yards.

Watters should be in the Hall Of Fame.

I guess his "For who? For what?" answer to the media's question about him not catching that one pass in the middle is what's haunting him from not being inducted.
Originally posted by ninersoul:
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
How exactly did they "downgrade" when they had the #1 offense in the NFL with Trestman calling the plays.


It's not Trestman's fault that Policy couldn't get Ricky Watters re-signed. That single loss was enough to kill the 49ers Superbowl chances as they were left with Derek "3.1 yards and a cloud of dust" Loville as their solution at RB.


In one season, 49ers went from Ricky Watters(FA) and Bar None Floyd(injury) to Derek Loville and Adam Walker....that's one hell of a downgrade.


With Trestman calling the plays, Jerry Rice ended up having his all-time best season, setting the NFL record for receiving yards.

The 49ers were DOMINANT offensively in 1994. No one could stop the 49ers from scoring and they scored 35 -- 40+ points in many games that year. Heck, I'll argue that offense was the best in NFL history.

Now no doubt the loss of Watters contributed to the difference of how the offense played the following season and I do feel the niners would've repeated as champs if Watters stayed with us...but the question relies was Watters THAT MUCH of a difference maker in our offense? I'm not so sure.

Even though Loville wasn't as good as Watters, he had talent. From what I remember he was capable of and did make plays running the ball. Its just that it appeared to me that Trestman didn't do a better job of providing more offensive balance.

Ricky Watters was way better than Loville. I don't think I ever saw Loville get more than 3 yds/play running ever. Not only was Watters a great RB he was also a good receiver as well. Trestman was not that good. He just inherited a Ferrari, but wasn't sure how to drive it. I remember Steve Young and Jerry Rice complaining about his dumb play calls. They don't complain unless it was needed, and it was.