Do you miss the Martz Offense?

I think Raye needs to get better at knowing when to call passes. Not necessarily more passes (though I'd like about 5 more per game) but the timing of the pass.

I think it's an advantage to know beforehand that the D is gonna load 8 men in the box on EVERY first down and every time you have a short yardage situation. If we were slightly more aggressive with our pass we could take serious advantage of it.

The play book has to open up b/c we wont make it to the playoffs with this offense.

Edit: To answer the post though, no I don't miss his offense. It cost us a lot of games, we don't have the personnel and our O now can grow to be quite good with increased QB play AND it will be sustainable for years.

I don't miss the Martz offense at all. People say that this offense is boring, but the way I see it, how can TD runs of 79 and 80 yds not be exciting? And instead of seven step drops that either end up in a turnover or 3 and outs, we sustained a 8 minute drive that proved a winner in AZ and a Drive of almost 10 minutes to hold off Seattle?

Right now, Singletary's formula is working.

Yes. If he was still here and with the way this D is playing we could have done some serious damage.

Originally posted by Antix:
I think Raye needs to get better at knowing when to call passes. Not necessarily more passes (though I'd like about 5 more per game) but the timing of the pass.

I think it's an advantage to know beforehand that the D is gonna load 8 men in the box on EVERY first down and every time you have a short yardage situation. If we were slightly more aggressive with our pass we could take serious advantage of it.

The play book has to open up b/c we wont make it to the playoffs with this offense.

Also, I hope that they abandon that Taser/Wildcat Package, the 9iners can't run it and shouldn't

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by dman:

Originally posted by AXEGRINDER:
Why would I miss turnovers which = losing?

Maybe I don't understand the question.

Turnovers are generally a part of an aggressive offense.....

So what i'm trying to say is that would you take an aggressive offense with with a few turnovers here and there to one with no turnovers but less aggressive.

-9fA

Our Martz offense had more than "a few turnovers here and there", but I get what you are saying.

I would prefer to be somewhere between Martz & Raye.

What's wrong with having a balanced offense?

I'm not voting on this.

Reason? Because we saw Hill run a dumbed down version of that Offense.

If Smith were named QB1 (I'm not politicking here honestly) then I might have been missing it.

But Hill is QB1 til(?), Martz is no longer an option and Raye is our OC. So to miss something that will not work given the current state of our Offensive unit isn't worth the time or the effort.

~Ceadder

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by dman:

Originally posted by AXEGRINDER:
Why would I miss turnovers which = losing?

Maybe I don't understand the question.

Turnovers are generally a part of an aggressive offense.....

So what i'm trying to say is that would you take an aggressive offense with with a few turnovers here and there to one with no turnovers but less aggressive.

-9fA

This team cannot win when they give away the game.

I know you mean that an aggressive offense generally fills the sky full of footballs, but I seem to think that pounding the ball relentlessly can also be described as being aggressive. What's not aggressive about beating the opponent into submission with the run?

I was at the game yesterday and it was quite satisfying to see the Seahawks defense bent over at the waist all tired in the 3rd and 4th quarters. I did not see the 49ers defense tired at all because why? Because we chewed the clock to hell.

This 49er team is far better suited for a ball control offense rather than.....I guess an "aggressive" offense.

I don't miss a Martz offense and I don't miss his face.

PS we had more than just a few turnovers here and there, we lost games because of turnovers. At least 3 or 4.

25% Who in the right mind voted in the 25 %?

I don't miss it. We are playing much better & I think the playcalling will get better.

Do you miss eight sacks a game?

Originally posted by B650:
I miss the aggressiveness, but I don't miss the bonehead play calls and totally forgetting about time of possession. How about something in between?

cosigned. sing did say in his press conference that at some point the offense would open up and he wants to get the ball to his playmakers though.

Originally posted by AXEGRINDER:
This team cannot win when they give away the game.

I know you mean that an aggressive offense generally fills the sky full of footballs, but I seem to think that pounding the ball relentlessly can also be described as being aggressive. What's not aggressive about beating the opponent into submission with the run?

I was at the game yesterday and it was quite satisfying to see the Seahawks defense bent over at the waist all tired in the 3rd and 4th quarters. I did not see the 49ers defense tired at all because why? Because we chewed the clock to hell.

This 49er team is far better suited for a ball control offense rather than.....I guess an "aggressive" offense.

I don't miss a Martz offense and I don't miss his face.

PS we had more than just a few turnovers here and there, we lost games because of turnovers. At least 3 or 4.

You make good points and i'm not wishing that Martz was still our coordinator. As I mentioned above, what I do miss though is the confidence in the QB to carry the team on his back if the game calls it.

The Martz offense just doesn't suit our personnel.

-9fA

Originally posted by Antix:
I think Raye needs to get better at knowing when to call passes. Not necessarily more passes (though I'd like about 5 more per game) but the timing of the pass.

I think it's an advantage to know beforehand that the D is gonna load 8 men in the box on EVERY first down and every time you have a short yardage situation. If we were slightly more aggressive with our pass we could take serious advantage of it.

The play book has to open up b/c we wont make it to the playoffs with this offense.

Edit: To answer the post though, no I don't miss his offense. It cost us a lot of games, we don't have the personnel and our O now can grow to be quite good with increased QB play AND it will be sustainable for years.

You do realize that yesterdays run:pass ration was 29 runs vs. 31 passes. In Week 1 it was 25 runs vs. 35 passes. Interesting that they ran the same number of plays in 2 games but to date, Raye has actually dialed up more pass plays than run plays. One can argue about not getting the ball down the field but you cannot really argue with the run-pass ration at this point.

Originally posted by AXEGRINDER:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by dman:

Originally posted by AXEGRINDER:
Why would I miss turnovers which = losing?

Maybe I don't understand the question.

Turnovers are generally a part of an aggressive offense.....

So what i'm trying to say is that would you take an aggressive offense with with a few turnovers here and there to one with no turnovers but less aggressive.

-9fA

This team cannot win when they give away the game.

I know you mean that an aggressive offense generally fills the sky full of footballs, but I seem to think that pounding the ball relentlessly can also be described as being aggressive. What's not aggressive about beating the opponent into submission with the run?

I was at the game yesterday and it was quite satisfying to see the Seahawks defense bent over at the waist all tired in the 3rd and 4th quarters. I did not see the 49ers defense tired at all because why? Because we chewed the clock to hell.

This 49er team is far better suited for a ball control offense rather than.....I guess an "aggressive" offense.

I don't miss a Martz offense and I don't miss his face.

PS we had more than just a few turnovers here and there, we lost games because of turnovers. At least 3 or 4.

Come on, I'm happy we're winning but let's call a spade a spade. Our offense is NOT controlling the clock. The reason we've been winning the T.O.P. is because of our DEFENSE.

Wanna see the proof: 3rd down efficiency against ARI: 28%
3rd down efficiency against SEA: 33%

Stop the presses! We're the first "ball control" offense that can't convert on 3rd downs!

We have a joke of an OC and make no mistake, he is gonna cost us some games. We could have blown ARI and SEA out and instead kept them in the game.

My hope is that Singletary seems aware of this issue (from what I've been able to tell from his press conferences).

I did like how Martz modified his passing attack when Hill started playing last year. Nothing too long, just medium routes. Ideally, I'd love to see the Martz passing attack working to perfection with our 2006 running results. Is there such a coordinator, or was that Norv only?