Offensive post-game analysis (Week 5)

Originally posted by Blitz:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by B650:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by ninerlifer:
are you saying Raye's predictable screens (what is about 20 a game) are what is slowing down, making Hill a free target to opposing defenders that seem to blow right on past and through our OL? Causing Hill to throw the ball when receivers are no where near ready? Really? Is that what you are saying?


I agree....there is no confidence in Hill.

Do you honestly think that we'd be throwing so many screens if we had a QB with a better arm under Center? Shoot I bet we're working with maybe a quarter of Raye's Offensive playbook. If that.

~Ceadder

Martz had the same QB and make him look like the second coming.

He made him look like the second coming at a time when NO TEAM had film on him. That's due to not being a Starter in his previous years in the NFL. A whopping total of what 2 quarters of play? Mostly handing off the ball?

Now teams KNOW that he's the Starter they have taken the time to dissect his game and what he is or ISN'T going to do in certain situations. And more and more we are seeing EXACTLY what he was to begin with. A Backup. No more no less.

But hey if it makes you feel better, keep telling yourself the same old lies that has fooled most of the fans.

~Ceadder

BTW, Hill had already started in a few games in 2007.

Those are not lies, they are facts. Great OCs develop their players. If you don't wanna talk about Hill, how about Warner, Green, Kitna, etc.

I'm sorry but Raye is a joke.

It's a combination of things. With Martz, Hill was a decent QB. With Turner, Smith was a decent QB. With Raye, Hill is a horrible QB. The combo just isn't working. Maybe if we had Tom Brady, Raye's system would be working. We don't. Something has to give.

To me the problem remains the same: crappy OC.

2006 - Norv Turner - a MUCH less talented team, that moved the ball a lot better.

2007 - Jim Hostler - a better than than the one Norv's coached, and he still managed to field one of the wors offenses in league history.

2008 - Mike Martz - Moved the ball pretty darn well, despite the sacks.

2009 - Jimmy Raye - Virtually the same team Martz had, and a 2007-type offense.


Now, I know logic is not in high demand in Niner Talk, but when I look at tha picture, I see one variable that leads to different results.

The only person on that list that had a motivated Larry Allen, a Justin Smiley and a healthy Jonas Jennings is Norv Turner.

Fair enough. Still, Martz didn't have neither of them and still fielded our best O in years.

Under Martz, the 49er's where unstoppable from our twenty to the opponents 40. After that, the petered out big time. So it's not fair to say it was our best O in years, because in the end...they where ranked 23nd in ypg and 22nd in points per. Those number's don;t suck as much a s 2007 Hostler, however, they still suck and I (myself, personally) would not be making claims about it being one of our best offenses in years because....one stunk a little less than the other, but they both stunk ass big time.

Considering it was better than Hostler's, Norv's and McCarthy's, you already have 3 years there.

Wow, I thought this was a legitimate thread about our offense, but in reality, it is just another Hill bashing thread... why has this not been merged?

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by Blitz:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by B650:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by ninerlifer:
are you saying Raye's predictable screens (what is about 20 a game) are what is slowing down, making Hill a free target to opposing defenders that seem to blow right on past and through our OL? Causing Hill to throw the ball when receivers are no where near ready? Really? Is that what you are saying?


I agree....there is no confidence in Hill.

Do you honestly think that we'd be throwing so many screens if we had a QB with a better arm under Center? Shoot I bet we're working with maybe a quarter of Raye's Offensive playbook. If that.

~Ceadder

Martz had the same QB and make him look like the second coming.

He made him look like the second coming at a time when NO TEAM had film on him. That's due to not being a Starter in his previous years in the NFL. A whopping total of what 2 quarters of play? Mostly handing off the ball?

Now teams KNOW that he's the Starter they have taken the time to dissect his game and what he is or ISN'T going to do in certain situations. And more and more we are seeing EXACTLY what he was to begin with. A Backup. No more no less.

But hey if it makes you feel better, keep telling yourself the same old lies that has fooled most of the fans.

~Ceadder

BTW, Hill had already started in a few games in 2007.

Those are not lies, they are facts. Great OCs develop their players. If you don't wanna talk about Hill, how about Warner, Green, Kitna, etc.

I'm sorry but Raye is a joke.

It's a combination of things. With Martz, Hill was a decent QB. With Turner, Smith was a decent QB. With Raye, Hill is a horrible QB. The combo just isn't working. Maybe if we had Tom Brady, Raye's system would be working. We don't. Something has to give.

To me the problem remains the same: crappy OC.

2006 - Norv Turner - a MUCH less talented team, that moved the ball a lot better.

2007 - Jim Hostler - a better than than the one Norv's coached, and he still managed to field one of the wors offenses in league history.

2008 - Mike Martz - Moved the ball pretty darn well, despite the sacks.

2009 - Jimmy Raye - Virtually the same team Martz had, and a 2007-type offense.


Now, I know logic is not in high demand in Niner Talk, but when I look at tha picture, I see one variable that leads to different results.

The only person on that list that had a motivated Larry Allen, a Justin Smiley and a healthy Jonas Jennings is Norv Turner.

Fair enough. Still, Martz didn't have neither of them and still fielded our best O in years.

Under Martz, the 49er's where unstoppable from our twenty to the opponents 40. After that, the petered out big time. So it's not fair to say it was our best O in years, because in the end...they where ranked 23nd in ypg and 22nd in points per. Those number's don;t suck as much a s 2007 Hostler, however, they still suck and I (myself, personally) would not be making claims about it being one of our best offenses in years because....one stunk a little less than the other, but they both stunk ass big time.

Considering it was better than Hostler's, Norv's and McCarthy's, you already have 3 years there.

I still don't see the point of this angle of argument. When something stinks, it stinks, period. Martz offense was ranked 23rd in points gained, the only stat the really matter's offensively. That stinks just as much as being ranked 32nd in my book.

The offense that Martz produced sucked as mush as the rest, end of story.

Originally posted by Blitz:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by Blitz:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by B650:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by ninerlifer:
are you saying Raye's predictable screens (what is about 20 a game) are what is slowing down, making Hill a free target to opposing defenders that seem to blow right on past and through our OL? Causing Hill to throw the ball when receivers are no where near ready? Really? Is that what you are saying?


I agree....there is no confidence in Hill.

Do you honestly think that we'd be throwing so many screens if we had a QB with a better arm under Center? Shoot I bet we're working with maybe a quarter of Raye's Offensive playbook. If that.

~Ceadder

Martz had the same QB and make him look like the second coming.

He made him look like the second coming at a time when NO TEAM had film on him. That's due to not being a Starter in his previous years in the NFL. A whopping total of what 2 quarters of play? Mostly handing off the ball?

Now teams KNOW that he's the Starter they have taken the time to dissect his game and what he is or ISN'T going to do in certain situations. And more and more we are seeing EXACTLY what he was to begin with. A Backup. No more no less.

But hey if it makes you feel better, keep telling yourself the same old lies that has fooled most of the fans.

~Ceadder

BTW, Hill had already started in a few games in 2007.

Those are not lies, they are facts. Great OCs develop their players. If you don't wanna talk about Hill, how about Warner, Green, Kitna, etc.

I'm sorry but Raye is a joke.

It's a combination of things. With Martz, Hill was a decent QB. With Turner, Smith was a decent QB. With Raye, Hill is a horrible QB. The combo just isn't working. Maybe if we had Tom Brady, Raye's system would be working. We don't. Something has to give.

To me the problem remains the same: crappy OC.

2006 - Norv Turner - a MUCH less talented team, that moved the ball a lot better.

2007 - Jim Hostler - a better than than the one Norv's coached, and he still managed to field one of the wors offenses in league history.

2008 - Mike Martz - Moved the ball pretty darn well, despite the sacks.

2009 - Jimmy Raye - Virtually the same team Martz had, and a 2007-type offense.


Now, I know logic is not in high demand in Niner Talk, but when I look at tha picture, I see one variable that leads to different results.

The only person on that list that had a motivated Larry Allen, a Justin Smiley and a healthy Jonas Jennings is Norv Turner.

Fair enough. Still, Martz didn't have neither of them and still fielded our best O in years.

Under Martz, the 49er's where unstoppable from our twenty to the opponents 40. After that, the petered out big time. So it's not fair to say it was our best O in years, because in the end...they where ranked 23nd in ypg and 22nd in points per. Those number's don;t suck as much a s 2007 Hostler, however, they still suck and I (myself, personally) would not be making claims about it being one of our best offenses in years because....one stunk a little less than the other, but they both stunk ass big time.

Considering it was better than Hostler's, Norv's and McCarthy's, you already have 3 years there.

I still don't see the point of this angle of argument. When something stinks, it stinks, period. Martz offense was ranked 23rd in points gained, the only stat the really matter's offensively. That stinks just as much as being ranked 32nd in my book.

The offense that Martz produced sucked as mush as the rest, end of story.

What? Those extra points are crucial when you have a good defense and you're always playing close games. We lost by 3 points in Minnesota. We beat Arizona by 4 points. The NFL is a game of inches.

Originally posted by Blitz:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by Blitz:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by B650:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by ninerlifer:
are you saying Raye's predictable screens (what is about 20 a game) are what is slowing down, making Hill a free target to opposing defenders that seem to blow right on past and through our OL? Causing Hill to throw the ball when receivers are no where near ready? Really? Is that what you are saying?


I agree....there is no confidence in Hill.

Do you honestly think that we'd be throwing so many screens if we had a QB with a better arm under Center? Shoot I bet we're working with maybe a quarter of Raye's Offensive playbook. If that.

~Ceadder

Martz had the same QB and make him look like the second coming.

He made him look like the second coming at a time when NO TEAM had film on him. That's due to not being a Starter in his previous years in the NFL. A whopping total of what 2 quarters of play? Mostly handing off the ball?

Now teams KNOW that he's the Starter they have taken the time to dissect his game and what he is or ISN'T going to do in certain situations. And more and more we are seeing EXACTLY what he was to begin with. A Backup. No more no less.

But hey if it makes you feel better, keep telling yourself the same old lies that has fooled most of the fans.

~Ceadder

BTW, Hill had already started in a few games in 2007.

Those are not lies, they are facts. Great OCs develop their players. If you don't wanna talk about Hill, how about Warner, Green, Kitna, etc.

I'm sorry but Raye is a joke.

It's a combination of things. With Martz, Hill was a decent QB. With Turner, Smith was a decent QB. With Raye, Hill is a horrible QB. The combo just isn't working. Maybe if we had Tom Brady, Raye's system would be working. We don't. Something has to give.

To me the problem remains the same: crappy OC.

2006 - Norv Turner - a MUCH less talented team, that moved the ball a lot better.

2007 - Jim Hostler - a better than than the one Norv's coached, and he still managed to field one of the wors offenses in league history.

2008 - Mike Martz - Moved the ball pretty darn well, despite the sacks.

2009 - Jimmy Raye - Virtually the same team Martz had, and a 2007-type offense.


Now, I know logic is not in high demand in Niner Talk, but when I look at tha picture, I see one variable that leads to different results.

The only person on that list that had a motivated Larry Allen, a Justin Smiley and a healthy Jonas Jennings is Norv Turner.

Fair enough. Still, Martz didn't have neither of them and still fielded our best O in years.

Under Martz, the 49er's where unstoppable from our twenty to the opponents 40. After that, the petered out big time. So it's not fair to say it was our best O in years, because in the end...they where ranked 23nd in ypg and 22nd in points per. Those number's don;t suck as much a s 2007 Hostler, however, they still suck and I (myself, personally) would not be making claims about it being one of our best offenses in years because....one stunk a little less than the other, but they both stunk ass big time.

Considering it was better than Hostler's, Norv's and McCarthy's, you already have 3 years there.

I still don't see the point of this angle of argument. When something stinks, it stinks, period. Martz offense was ranked 23rd in points gained, the only stat the really matter's offensively. That stinks just as much as being ranked 32nd in my book.

The offense that Martz produced sucked as mush as the rest, end of story.

Uh... No. 23rd sucks much less than 32nd. Exactly 9 less.

Now, granted, we can't be a top ten offense with our talent (particularly at QB), but with a good OC, we could be good enough to help our defense.

The rest will come through (I hope) good drafts and free agencies.

Ray is a retard, he thinks Crabtree only ran two routs in college.

Originally posted by Blitz:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by Blitz:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by B650:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by ninerlifer:
are you saying Raye's predictable screens (what is about 20 a game) are what is slowing down, making Hill a free target to opposing defenders that seem to blow right on past and through our OL? Causing Hill to throw the ball when receivers are no where near ready? Really? Is that what you are saying?


I agree....there is no confidence in Hill.

Do you honestly think that we'd be throwing so many screens if we had a QB with a better arm under Center? Shoot I bet we're working with maybe a quarter of Raye's Offensive playbook. If that.

~Ceadder

Martz had the same QB and make him look like the second coming.

He made him look like the second coming at a time when NO TEAM had film on him. That's due to not being a Starter in his previous years in the NFL. A whopping total of what 2 quarters of play? Mostly handing off the ball?

Now teams KNOW that he's the Starter they have taken the time to dissect his game and what he is or ISN'T going to do in certain situations. And more and more we are seeing EXACTLY what he was to begin with. A Backup. No more no less.

But hey if it makes you feel better, keep telling yourself the same old lies that has fooled most of the fans.

~Ceadder

BTW, Hill had already started in a few games in 2007.

Those are not lies, they are facts. Great OCs develop their players. If you don't wanna talk about Hill, how about Warner, Green, Kitna, etc.

I'm sorry but Raye is a joke.

It's a combination of things. With Martz, Hill was a decent QB. With Turner, Smith was a decent QB. With Raye, Hill is a horrible QB. The combo just isn't working. Maybe if we had Tom Brady, Raye's system would be working. We don't. Something has to give.

To me the problem remains the same: crappy OC.

2006 - Norv Turner - a MUCH less talented team, that moved the ball a lot better.

2007 - Jim Hostler - a better than than the one Norv's coached, and he still managed to field one of the wors offenses in league history.

2008 - Mike Martz - Moved the ball pretty darn well, despite the sacks.

2009 - Jimmy Raye - Virtually the same team Martz had, and a 2007-type offense.


Now, I know logic is not in high demand in Niner Talk, but when I look at tha picture, I see one variable that leads to different results.

The only person on that list that had a motivated Larry Allen, a Justin Smiley and a healthy Jonas Jennings is Norv Turner.

Fair enough. Still, Martz didn't have neither of them and still fielded our best O in years.

Under Martz, the 49er's where unstoppable from our twenty to the opponents 40. After that, the petered out big time. So it's not fair to say it was our best O in years, because in the end...they where ranked 23nd in ypg and 22nd in points per. Those number's don;t suck as much a s 2007 Hostler, however, they still suck and I (myself, personally) would not be making claims about it being one of our best offenses in years because....one stunk a little less than the other, but they both stunk ass big time.

Considering it was better than Hostler's, Norv's and McCarthy's, you already have 3 years there.

I still don't see the point of this angle of argument. When something stinks, it stinks, period. Martz offense was ranked 23rd in points gained, the only stat the really matter's offensively. That stinks just as much as being ranked 32nd in my book.

The offense that Martz produced sucked as mush as the rest, end of story.

While that may be true. His claim is it's the best in years. regardless of how bad it may have been. Regardless of where it got us. It was still better than it has been. Which is all he's saying.

Originally posted by pd24:
Ray is a retard, he thinks Crabtree only ran two routs in college.

Whether he did or didn't. Only time WR's get the ball thrown to them is bubble screens and slants. So he'll fit right in.

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Blitz:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by Blitz:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by B650:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by ninerlifer:
are you saying Raye's predictable screens (what is about 20 a game) are what is slowing down, making Hill a free target to opposing defenders that seem to blow right on past and through our OL? Causing Hill to throw the ball when receivers are no where near ready? Really? Is that what you are saying?


I agree....there is no confidence in Hill.

Do you honestly think that we'd be throwing so many screens if we had a QB with a better arm under Center? Shoot I bet we're working with maybe a quarter of Raye's Offensive playbook. If that.

~Ceadder

Martz had the same QB and make him look like the second coming.

He made him look like the second coming at a time when NO TEAM had film on him. That's due to not being a Starter in his previous years in the NFL. A whopping total of what 2 quarters of play? Mostly handing off the ball?

Now teams KNOW that he's the Starter they have taken the time to dissect his game and what he is or ISN'T going to do in certain situations. And more and more we are seeing EXACTLY what he was to begin with. A Backup. No more no less.

But hey if it makes you feel better, keep telling yourself the same old lies that has fooled most of the fans.

~Ceadder

BTW, Hill had already started in a few games in 2007.

Those are not lies, they are facts. Great OCs develop their players. If you don't wanna talk about Hill, how about Warner, Green, Kitna, etc.

I'm sorry but Raye is a joke.

It's a combination of things. With Martz, Hill was a decent QB. With Turner, Smith was a decent QB. With Raye, Hill is a horrible QB. The combo just isn't working. Maybe if we had Tom Brady, Raye's system would be working. We don't. Something has to give.

To me the problem remains the same: crappy OC.

2006 - Norv Turner - a MUCH less talented team, that moved the ball a lot better.

2007 - Jim Hostler - a better than than the one Norv's coached, and he still managed to field one of the wors offenses in league history.

2008 - Mike Martz - Moved the ball pretty darn well, despite the sacks.

2009 - Jimmy Raye - Virtually the same team Martz had, and a 2007-type offense.


Now, I know logic is not in high demand in Niner Talk, but when I look at tha picture, I see one variable that leads to different results.

The only person on that list that had a motivated Larry Allen, a Justin Smiley and a healthy Jonas Jennings is Norv Turner.

Fair enough. Still, Martz didn't have neither of them and still fielded our best O in years.

Under Martz, the 49er's where unstoppable from our twenty to the opponents 40. After that, the petered out big time. So it's not fair to say it was our best O in years, because in the end...they where ranked 23nd in ypg and 22nd in points per. Those number's don;t suck as much a s 2007 Hostler, however, they still suck and I (myself, personally) would not be making claims about it being one of our best offenses in years because....one stunk a little less than the other, but they both stunk ass big time.

Considering it was better than Hostler's, Norv's and McCarthy's, you already have 3 years there.

I still don't see the point of this angle of argument. When something stinks, it stinks, period. Martz offense was ranked 23rd in points gained, the only stat the really matter's offensively. That stinks just as much as being ranked 32nd in my book.

The offense that Martz produced sucked as mush as the rest, end of story.

While that may be true. His claim is it's the best in years. regardless of how bad it may have been. Regardless of where it got us. It was still better than it has been. Which is all he's saying.

Yeah, well my point is this: You can't get blood out of a Turnip. The offense is a Turnip...and it is damn near the point where the whole damn thing needs to be torn down and rebuilt because there is something seriously wrong with it if 4 different OC's can't get it to work. That's the common thread, the offense, regardless of OC, has sucked.

You guys are talking band aid s**t if your thinking a different OC, or even head coach, is going to take this offense anywhere with the same personnel we have.

It's time start thinking about the f**k is going and who the hell is staying personnel wise, instead of OC wise, especially with that O line and QB, which I damn sick and tired of sick tired over the last three years.

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by Blitz:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by Blitz:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by B650:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by ninerlifer:
are you saying Raye's predictable screens (what is about 20 a game) are what is slowing down, making Hill a free target to opposing defenders that seem to blow right on past and through our OL? Causing Hill to throw the ball when receivers are no where near ready? Really? Is that what you are saying?


I agree....there is no confidence in Hill.

Do you honestly think that we'd be throwing so many screens if we had a QB with a better arm under Center? Shoot I bet we're working with maybe a quarter of Raye's Offensive playbook. If that.

~Ceadder

Martz had the same QB and make him look like the second coming.

He made him look like the second coming at a time when NO TEAM had film on him. That's due to not being a Starter in his previous years in the NFL. A whopping total of what 2 quarters of play? Mostly handing off the ball?

Now teams KNOW that he's the Starter they have taken the time to dissect his game and what he is or ISN'T going to do in certain situations. And more and more we are seeing EXACTLY what he was to begin with. A Backup. No more no less.

But hey if it makes you feel better, keep telling yourself the same old lies that has fooled most of the fans.

~Ceadder

BTW, Hill had already started in a few games in 2007.

Those are not lies, they are facts. Great OCs develop their players. If you don't wanna talk about Hill, how about Warner, Green, Kitna, etc.

I'm sorry but Raye is a joke.

It's a combination of things. With Martz, Hill was a decent QB. With Turner, Smith was a decent QB. With Raye, Hill is a horrible QB. The combo just isn't working. Maybe if we had Tom Brady, Raye's system would be working. We don't. Something has to give.

To me the problem remains the same: crappy OC.

2006 - Norv Turner - a MUCH less talented team, that moved the ball a lot better.

2007 - Jim Hostler - a better than than the one Norv's coached, and he still managed to field one of the wors offenses in league history.

2008 - Mike Martz - Moved the ball pretty darn well, despite the sacks.

2009 - Jimmy Raye - Virtually the same team Martz had, and a 2007-type offense.


Now, I know logic is not in high demand in Niner Talk, but when I look at tha picture, I see one variable that leads to different results.

The only person on that list that had a motivated Larry Allen, a Justin Smiley and a healthy Jonas Jennings is Norv Turner.

Fair enough. Still, Martz didn't have neither of them and still fielded our best O in years.

Under Martz, the 49er's where unstoppable from our twenty to the opponents 40. After that, the petered out big time. So it's not fair to say it was our best O in years, because in the end...they where ranked 23nd in ypg and 22nd in points per. Those number's don;t suck as much a s 2007 Hostler, however, they still suck and I (myself, personally) would not be making claims about it being one of our best offenses in years because....one stunk a little less than the other, but they both stunk ass big time.

Considering it was better than Hostler's, Norv's and McCarthy's, you already have 3 years there.

I still don't see the point of this angle of argument. When something stinks, it stinks, period. Martz offense was ranked 23rd in points gained, the only stat the really matter's offensively. That stinks just as much as being ranked 32nd in my book.

The offense that Martz produced sucked as mush as the rest, end of story.

Uh... No. 23rd sucks much less than 32nd. Exactly 9 less.

Now, granted, we can't be a top ten offense with our talent (particularly at QB), but with a good OC, we could be good enough to help our defense.

The rest will come through (I hope) good drafts and free agencies.

( 9 spots? You have a fine nose for how much something stinks. Mine doesn't work that way. I'm not impressed with how much something sucks. Maybe If I believed in the little boys philosophy of runner-ups getting trophy's I may think differently, but I don't. No trophy's for 32nd, 23rd, or even 2nd. The fact remains he stunk once he got to the opponents 40, hence....23rd in points. I'm not into driving around in circles, the object of the game is to score as much you can and keep the other guy from doing the same thing. I've yet to find a damn thing about Mart'z offense that was worthy of any accolade. But you have certainly found one.

Originally posted by Blitz:

Originally posted by krizay:


While that may be true. His claim is it's the best in years. regardless of how bad it may have been. Regardless of where it got us. It was still better than it has been. Which is all he's saying.

Yeah, well my point is this: You can't get blood out of a Turnip. The offense is a Turnip...and it is damn near the point where the whole damn thing needs to be torn down and rebuilt because there is something seriously wrong with it if 4 different OC's can't get it to work. That's the common thread, the offense, regardless of OC, has sucked.

You guys are talking band aid s**t if your thinking a different OC, or even head coach, is going to take this offense anywhere with the same personnel we have.

It's time start thinking about the f**k is going and who the hell is staying personnel wise, instead of OC wise, especially with that O line and QB, which I damn sick and tired of sick tired over the last three years.

Oh I agree with you in that it's the players and not the OC. I agree 100%

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:


( 9 spots? You have a fine nose for how much something stinks. Mine doesn't work that way. I'm not impressed with how much something sucks. Maybe If I believed in the little boys philosophy of runner-ups getting trophy's I may think differently, but I don't. No trophy's for 32nd, 23rd, or even 2nd. The fact remains he stunk once he got to the opponents 40, hence....23rd in points. I'm not into driving around in circles, the object of the game is to score as much you can and keep the other guy from doing the same thing. I've yet to find a damn thing about Mart'z offense that was worthy of any accolade. But you have certainly found one.

Like another post noted, those 9 spots in the NFL many times are the difference between a W and a L, especially with the way our D has been playing (minus last game).

Like I said, our offense has mediocre talent and we have a mediocre OC. Just because you can't imporve the talent part quickly, is no reason to not improve the OC spot.

The talent will take time to arrive. But a good OC with this talent could mean at least a couple more Ws.

Just posted this in another thread, but thought it was more relevant in this one



Has anyone realized why Bruce looks sooooo much older than he did last year?

i understand fully that he is way past his prime, but he was still a solid, leading reciever for us last year.

He is being used so poorly to his own abilities in Raye's offense, its sickening. He is running fkn fade go routes on the sideline, trying to outrun the Cornerback? sh*t, if Raye used Jerry Rice to his strengths like he uses Bruce, no one would even know who he is. Bruce is NOT cut out to go in motion and try to do crossing routes after getting pushed off by big linebackers, and have Shaun hill throw up ducks to him on go routes and make a miraculous catch on the sideline.

He is built for deep ins, outs, dig routs, smash routes, everything that has to do with precise route running, and nothing to do with speed....Raye is so bad i can't believe he has gotten fired yet. Bruce can still produce strictly off of his un real route running, he just can't show it right now with the way he is being utilized in this JOKE of an offense.

does anyone else see this?

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Blitz:

Originally posted by krizay:


While that may be true. His claim is it's the best in years. regardless of how bad it may have been. Regardless of where it got us. It was still better than it has been. Which is all he's saying.

Yeah, well my point is this: You can't get blood out of a Turnip. The offense is a Turnip...and it is damn near the point where the whole damn thing needs to be torn down and rebuilt because there is something seriously wrong with it if 4 different OC's can't get it to work. That's the common thread, the offense, regardless of OC, has sucked.

You guys are talking band aid s**t if your thinking a different OC, or even head coach, is going to take this offense anywhere with the same personnel we have.

It's time start thinking about the f**k is going and who the hell is staying personnel wise, instead of OC wise, especially with that O line and QB, which I damn sick and tired of sick tired over the last three years.

Oh I agree with you in that it's the players and not the OC. I agree 100%

your both wrong. Raye is making Hill look like an idiot, Bruce like a #4 rookie reciever, and our O line like a bunch of idiots. Our O line isnt THIS BAD, they are progressively getting worse too, which has a ton to do with coaching. Raye has gotten the ball to Vernon more, thats IT. everything else in our offense has taken many steps backwards since he arrived.

Originally posted by DynastyChile:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Blitz:

Originally posted by krizay:


While that may be true. His claim is it's the best in years. regardless of how bad it may have been. Regardless of where it got us. It was still better than it has been. Which is all he's saying.

Yeah, well my point is this: You can't get blood out of a Turnip. The offense is a Turnip...and it is damn near the point where the whole damn thing needs to be torn down and rebuilt because there is something seriously wrong with it if 4 different OC's can't get it to work. That's the common thread, the offense, regardless of OC, has sucked.

You guys are talking band aid s**t if your thinking a different OC, or even head coach, is going to take this offense anywhere with the same personnel we have.

It's time start thinking about the f**k is going and who the hell is staying personnel wise, instead of OC wise, especially with that O line and QB, which I damn sick and tired of sick tired over the last three years.

Oh I agree with you in that it's the players and not the OC. I agree 100%

your both wrong. Raye is making Hill look like an idiot, Bruce like a #4 rookie reciever, and our O line like a bunch of idiots. Our O line isnt THIS BAD, they are progressively getting worse too, which has a ton to do with coaching. Raye has gotten the ball to Vernon more, thats IT. everything else in our offense has taken many steps backwards since he arrived.

Hahaha. Rachel has been getting his owned, same with whoever is at the RT spot at the time. Everydody see's it, including most of the of the most amateurish football fans here in the zone. Hill is a back up QB playing in a starting position, he is not a weapon, he's a game manager and that's it. Bruce has been dropping balls of late. Coffee isn't seeing the whole field yet and running head on into the pile when he's got open field to go to instead. Davis had his head up his ass yesterday and couldn't run a route right to save his life. Morgan p[robably could have scored if he hadn't have looked back and just burned down the fied instead (and oh yeah, how about that dropped pass last week, the one that would have been a TD if he hadn't of "got greedy" as he says).

Hahaha, that's just the offensive f**kups, we don't even have to go into the defensive side, the list was even longer.

And yet, Raye makes them all play like a bunch of idiots! Why, they don't really play, they are all impostor's! It's Raye who can't block, who can't catch, who can't run a pee wee football route, who can't throw all the routes even if he wanted to!


They got their ass owned in the individual match up's, no scheme was going to save them. Good for them, bring their asses back down to earth, after yesterday, it is readily apparent they needed to come back down to earth. LMAO

Just to be clear, Hill is a backup QB in a starting QB role, your sorely mistaken if you think he is going to amount to anything other than a game manager, as evidenced yesterday.