Do you miss the Martz Offense?

Originally posted by Ceadderman:
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

you would have spent less time and effort just by voting!

Originally posted by WillistheWall:

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.

Okay, that being said do you feel comfortable with that in this current form of 9er Football?

I know that I don't. Especially when the Opposing D is stacking the box with 8 and 9 guys and our QB not able to take advantage of that consistently.

~Ceadder

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

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

I seem to remember Hill doing just that against Arizona, and last year against the Rams, and he chewed up alot of time while he did it, allowing his defense to rest. If he had to get down the field in under a minute, then well you may have a point and you may not, it remains to be seen. Let's face it, Hill has not needed to put the team on his back a whole lot, and I think that is how Sing envisions his offense being. Less gambling and more execution=winning, and I agree.

Not at all, I do however miss the Bill Walsh (never say west coast) Offense!

I kinda miss the big gains, but I don't miss the strip-sacks and INTs.

Do I miss the hole in my head Mike martz and his boy wonder O'Turnover were single handedly costing us games...Nolan was an idiot for hiring Martz to begin with, sorry I digress...

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:
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

you would have spent less time and effort just by voting!

Not enough options to suit my intellectual take on it though krizz.


And to follow up with Brazil here, as much as you want to blame Raye(he does deserve some of the criticism, especially running WC on 3rd and 28) you can't take a turnip and make filet mignon with it. He can only do so much with what he is given. We SHOULD have been able to blow out Seattle, not sure we COULD have blown out Az. But were basically fighting with one arm tied behind our back and the other tied to our opposite foot.

We got away with putting the ball on the carpet FOUR freakin times. No way we're blowin ANYONE out with that kind of play, no matter who the QB is.

~Ceadder

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

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).

Don't agree. While our defense has been good, it's partly because the offense is allowing them to rest. It's common football knowledge that the longer the defense is on the field, eventually they will give up points. Only the offense executing all the way down the field, allows the defense to rest and come in fresh.

Ask our defense if they would prefer a Martz offense. Ask our O-line and qb if they would prefer a Martz offense. Ask Frank Gore if he would prefer Martz offense or the "joke of an OC" offense.

I'm all for what wins, and so far the ball control offense is doing just that.

Originally posted by AXEGRINDER:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

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).

Don't agree. While our defense has been good, it's partly because the offense is allowing them to rest. It's common football knowledge that the longer the defense is on the field, eventually they will give up points. Only the offense executing all the way down the field, allows the defense to rest and come in fresh.

Ask our defense if they would prefer a Martz offense. Ask our O-line and qb if they would prefer a Martz offense. Ask Frank Gore if he would prefer Martz offense or the "joke of an OC" offense.

I'm all for what wins, and so far the ball control offense is doing just that.

It isn't about agreeing. It's 28 % 3rd down efficiency!!!! Thas a fact, not an opinion. How is our offense allowing them to rest?? THEY CANT STAY ON THE FIELD!

Yes, our D would be MUCH better with Martz offense. At least our O was able to convert more than 30% of the 3rd downs.

Seriously. Do you remember all the picks and fumbles?

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by AXEGRINDER:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

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).

Don't agree. While our defense has been good, it's partly because the offense is allowing them to rest. It's common football knowledge that the longer the defense is on the field, eventually they will give up points. Only the offense executing all the way down the field, allows the defense to rest and come in fresh.

Ask our defense if they would prefer a Martz offense. Ask our O-line and qb if they would prefer a Martz offense. Ask Frank Gore if he would prefer Martz offense or the "joke of an OC" offense.

I'm all for what wins, and so far the ball control offense is doing just that.

It isn't about agreeing. It's 28 % 3rd down efficiency!!!! Thas a fact, not an opinion. How is our offense allowing them to rest?? THEY CANT STAY ON THE FIELD!

Yes, our D would be MUCH better with Martz offense. At least our O was able to convert more than 30% of the 3rd downs.

What do you mean the offense can't stay on the field?

49ers TOP=31:37
Ariz. TOP=28:23

49ers TOP=34:31
Seattle TOP=25:29

Originally posted by AXEGRINDER:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by AXEGRINDER:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

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).

Don't agree. While our defense has been good, it's partly because the offense is allowing them to rest. It's common football knowledge that the longer the defense is on the field, eventually they will give up points. Only the offense executing all the way down the field, allows the defense to rest and come in fresh.

Ask our defense if they would prefer a Martz offense. Ask our O-line and qb if they would prefer a Martz offense. Ask Frank Gore if he would prefer Martz offense or the "joke of an OC" offense.

I'm all for what wins, and so far the ball control offense is doing just that.

It isn't about agreeing. It's 28 % 3rd down efficiency!!!! Thas a fact, not an opinion. How is our offense allowing them to rest?? THEY CANT STAY ON THE FIELD!

Yes, our D would be MUCH better with Martz offense. At least our O was able to convert more than 30% of the 3rd downs.

What do you mean the offense can't stay on the field?

49ers TOP=31:37
Ariz. TOP=28:23

49ers TOP=34:31
Seattle TOP=25:29

Did you even read what I wrote? The reason why we won the TOP is because of our D, not our O. Our O kept getting 3 and outs and our D kept sending them back onto the field.

Once again, 3rd down efficiency: 28 and 33%! THEY CAN"T STAY ON THE FIELD.

Originally posted by AXEGRINDER:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

Originally posted by AXEGRINDER:

Originally posted by Brazilian49er:

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).

Don't agree. While our defense has been good, it's partly because the offense is allowing them to rest. It's common football knowledge that the longer the defense is on the field, eventually they will give up points. Only the offense executing all the way down the field, allows the defense to rest and come in fresh.

Ask our defense if they would prefer a Martz offense. Ask our O-line and qb if they would prefer a Martz offense. Ask Frank Gore if he would prefer Martz offense or the "joke of an OC" offense.

I'm all for what wins, and so far the ball control offense is doing just that.

It isn't about agreeing. It's 28 % 3rd down efficiency!!!! Thas a fact, not an opinion. How is our offense allowing them to rest?? THEY CANT STAY ON THE FIELD!

Yes, our D would be MUCH better with Martz offense. At least our O was able to convert more than 30% of the 3rd downs.

What do you mean the offense can't stay on the field?

49ers TOP=31:37
Ariz. TOP=28:23

49ers TOP=34:31
Seattle TOP=25:29

Those numbers are a little skewed given that Sheattle was not able to get back on the field for most of the 4th quarter.

3rd down percentages kill that though, given that we weren't converting alot of our drives. Only think that kept us in the lead were those two 80 yarders that Frank ripped on them.

Of course it doesn't help to run a WC on 3rd and 28. That is solely on Raye.

~Ceadder

Did anyone see the Colts Fins game? 15 minute ToP for the Colts and they won. The reason? Peyton freakin Manning.

No way our Defense can continue to be counted on like this. Granted it's to a serious extreme but if we match up with an opponent like Miami we are TOAST.

~Ceadder

Hell to the Flippin NO