There are 114 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Official Greg "the mad scientist" Roman Express

Originally posted by NCommand:
^ BUMP ^ Where are the fans at on this one? I'm very curious what you all think!

What am I thinking? wow... and this ---->

You said it best here below...

This sounds way too compartmentalized to me and may explain the lack of "flow" and in-game and half-time adjustments.
Originally posted by Mr.Mcgibblets:
Originally posted by NCommand:
^ BUMP ^ Where are the fans at on this one? I'm very curious what you all think!

What am I thinking? wow... and this ---->

You said it best here below...

This sounds way too compartmentalized to me and may explain the lack of "flow" and in-game and half-time adjustments.

I can not BELIEVE this hasn't blown up NT today...screw the "old" QB talk. This IS the source of all our frustrations on offense in a nutshell.
Originally posted by NCommand:
^ BUMP ^ Where are the fans at on this one? I'm very curious what you all think!

It's no wonder our offense doesn't flow very well. How can you set up plays when 3 guys are calling them? This might be too much for the average fan to understand, or co-worker for that matter.

Edit: BTW I saw this yesterday and forgot to comment.
[ Edited by paperplanemedia on Dec 7, 2012 at 2:58 PM ]
Originally posted by paperplanemedia:
Originally posted by NCommand:
^ BUMP ^ Where are the fans at on this one? I'm very curious what you all think!

It's no wonder our offense doesn't flow very well. How can you set up plays when 3 guys are calling them? This might be too much for the average fan to understand, or co-worker for that matter.

Edit: BTW I saw this yesterday and forgot to comment.

Totally. But I believe the assistants contribute to the game plan...not making calls during the game. But if three of them are contributing to different parts of the game plan (run game, pass game and red zone), that is, they know their personnel best, why are we so ineffective at times? Is Roman sticking with the game plan in front of him no matter what or does he scrap it when he sees a CB playing 10 yards off all game, or sees that the Jets can't stop the run so he stays with it, etc.?

I have so many questions I barely know where to start!
This thread will go into hibernation when we win by three touchdowns and everyone falls in love with Greg Roman again. It will continue when we beat up on the Patriots.

And then the vitriol of hate will start up when we lose to the Seachickens in a meaningless, forgetful game.
Assuming success--yes, this thread will go into hibernation. But success means Roman is likely gone, while failure would mean he likely stays...where does that leave the team?

The divided play preparation is not unique to the niners and there haven't been many problems with getting plays in on time, so I am inclined to believe the actual game time decisions are more streamlined than indicated here.

One aspect of the divided prep may be a need to give each coach their due in # of plays called each game. This could really screw up any ability to set opponents up for future plays, which has been a problem all year (two years?). I'd like to hear more about the process.
Originally posted by NCommand:
Interesting take on how the game plans are really devised: http://49ers.pressdemocrat.com/2012/12/inside-the-49ers/49ers-offense-not-really-greg-romans/

Third string quarterback Scott Tolzien said, "For the most part, Coach [Greg] Roman does the run game, [Wide receivers] Coach [Johnnie] Morton does the pass game and [quarterbacks] Coach [Geep] Chryst takes the red zone."

Later, Anthony Dixon confirmed Tolzien's statement for the Press Democrat, saying, "That sounds right."

So, when Harbaugh says it's "Greg Roman's offense," that does not seem to be entirely accurate. The offense is more of an amalgam. When discussing the pass game, apparently the questions should be directed at Johnnie Morton and not at Greg Roman.

This seems convoluted to me. I've always heard of assistants watching tape of the upcoming opponent and then, knowing their own personnel best (WR's, OL, RB, etc.), providing input into the overall game plan for that week but never assistants doing ALL of one part of a total game plan. I've always agreed with Gore that Roman does appear to be a genius in the run game (check his bio - it makes perfect sense) but have always questioned the overall game plan at times, and esp. the passing game and the RZ fails (BTW: have we passed INTO the EZ more than twice this year on a designed call?).

So how valuable IS Greg Roman overall knowing this (assuming its accurate)? This sounds way too compartmentalized to me and may explain the lack of "flow" and in-game and half-time adjustments. I'm assuming Roman signs off on the final game plan and reviews it with Harbaugh. And after Harbaugh signs off on it, it's them implemented on the practice field. In addition, he probable signs off on each play throughout the course of the game to.

So my question then is, how is the game plan devised and is it flexible? For instance, we continue to see plays where we clearly are running into a brick wall. The pitch back to Ginn...was that a call that was next up on the game plan but it didn't factor in the situational awareness (inside our own 15 with 4 minutes to go and with a lead)? Do they deviate from it? Have multiple plays for each snap...(rolls or kills) and if so, what types...run can be changed to pass and vice versa or both runs or both passes?

I know most great OC's have situational plays...if X then Y. If we're inside our own 20, up by 10 with 4 minutes to go then call from these plays.

This is all very significant...esp. if Roman leaves...or stays.


I don't know about this. Our game plan for the Rams seemed to lack a general concept for how to deal with their pressures, but besides that, was OK as a GAME PLAN.

I think our BASE offense is actually very good. The problem I have is all of the cute plays; perhaps more importantly, cute plays called at the wrong times. We ran a couple QB sneaks at absolutely awful times. It's like Roman is disconnected from the "flow" of the game, or doesn't believe in it.

If those three are scheming a game plan together before the game, that is probably OK, but DURING the game, I think we have been disconnected from what the defense is actually trying to do to us.
It was very remarkable, that we were dropping slant plays on that defense all day long, but for some reason, we were incapable of sticking with it more. That implies some kind of disconnect from the game itself.
Like a general who has taken the left flank, but orders his troops to stop the advance because it's not part of the "plan". Our ability to adapt on the fly is questionable.
[ Edited by BrianGO on Dec 7, 2012 at 5:41 PM ]
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Yes let's completely ignore the fact that we have the #11 ranked offense overall. Time to fire the OC for sure.

Lets ignore the fact that those numbers are skewed due to the 49ers beating up on the cupcakes in their schedule and struggling mostly against actual playoff teams.

BRB....top NFL offense......scores 13 or less points in 4 games this season.

So you're going to nit pick stats rather than look at the entire picture. Ok makes a lot of sense.
Originally posted by BrianGO:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Interesting take on how the game plans are really devised: http://49ers.pressdemocrat.com/2012/12/inside-the-49ers/49ers-offense-not-really-greg-romans/

Third string quarterback Scott Tolzien said, "For the most part, Coach [Greg] Roman does the run game, [Wide receivers] Coach [Johnnie] Morton does the pass game and [quarterbacks] Coach [Geep] Chryst takes the red zone."

Later, Anthony Dixon confirmed Tolzien's statement for the Press Democrat, saying, "That sounds right."

So, when Harbaugh says it's "Greg Roman's offense," that does not seem to be entirely accurate. The offense is more of an amalgam. When discussing the pass game, apparently the questions should be directed at Johnnie Morton and not at Greg Roman.

This seems convoluted to me. I've always heard of assistants watching tape of the upcoming opponent and then, knowing their own personnel best (WR's, OL, RB, etc.), providing input into the overall game plan for that week but never assistants doing ALL of one part of a total game plan. I've always agreed with Gore that Roman does appear to be a genius in the run game (check his bio - it makes perfect sense) but have always questioned the overall game plan at times, and esp. the passing game and the RZ fails (BTW: have we passed INTO the EZ more than twice this year on a designed call?).

So how valuable IS Greg Roman overall knowing this (assuming its accurate)? This sounds way too compartmentalized to me and may explain the lack of "flow" and in-game and half-time adjustments. I'm assuming Roman signs off on the final game plan and reviews it with Harbaugh. And after Harbaugh signs off on it, it's them implemented on the practice field. In addition, he probable signs off on each play throughout the course of the game to.

So my question then is, how is the game plan devised and is it flexible? For instance, we continue to see plays where we clearly are running into a brick wall. The pitch back to Ginn...was that a call that was next up on the game plan but it didn't factor in the situational awareness (inside our own 15 with 4 minutes to go and with a lead)? Do they deviate from it? Have multiple plays for each snap...(rolls or kills) and if so, what types...run can be changed to pass and vice versa or both runs or both passes?

I know most great OC's have situational plays...if X then Y. If we're inside our own 20, up by 10 with 4 minutes to go then call from these plays.

This is all very significant...esp. if Roman leaves...or stays.


I don't know about this. Our game plan for the Rams seemed to lack a general concept for how to deal with their pressures, but besides that, was OK as a GAME PLAN.

I think our BASE offense is actually very good. The problem I have is all of the cute plays; perhaps more importantly, cute plays called at the wrong times. We ran a couple QB sneaks at absolutely awful times. It's like Roman is disconnected from the "flow" of the game, or doesn't believe in it.

If those three are scheming a game plan together before the game, that is probably OK, but DURING the game, I think we have been disconnected from what the defense is actually trying to do to us.
It was very remarkable, that we were dropping slant plays on that defense all day long, but for some reason, we were incapable of sticking with it more. That implies some kind of disconnect from the game itself.
Like a general who has taken the left flank, but orders his troops to stop the advance because it's not part of the "plan". Our ability to adapt on the fly is questionable.

Thank you. You explained my biggest concern much better than I did.

Also, I certainly have no issues with the specialty coaches contributing to the overall (initial) game plan coming in. But how much are they contributing? That's what concerns me. You see, the WCO was predicated on exploiting the opponents weaknesses (what game plan isn't though?). If you're a Johnnie Morton and you're facing a 31st ranked passing defense but we're a more run-oriented team, is it 50-50 since HaRoman are always striving for a "balance?" Your opponent and their weaknesses should be dictating the game plan and play calling...not equal contributions. And if Johnnie Morton does provide close to half of the game plan (minus the RZ, which of course we RARELY pass INTO the EZ), shouldn't he be taking better advantage of the optimal receiving weapons we do have in VD, Manningham, Crabtree underneath, the deep speed of Moss (RZ and deep play ability esp. the deep sideline and post patterns), Jenkins, Ginn (deep decoy for those underneath), Miller, Gore/Hunter/ames, etc.? I just don't see much creativity if getting our best receivers the ball in their hands and letting them do their thing and THAT is anti-WCO to me. The last time I saw a game plan that genuinely included getting VD the ball early and often was the Bears game...we lined VD up all over the place and got hi isolated...he had 8 targets and 7 receptions all for big gains and the result was, naturally, an offensive explosion.

But prior to that, he had been missing for 4 games (almost completely) and now, again, for three games after. So where is that same consistent creativity for VD and all of our other weapons? Like in the Rams game...if it's obvious, and it was, that Jenkins (Rams CB) was giving a 10 yard cushion on ever pass, no matter what the down and distance, why not put Moss, Crabtree and Manningham in that FL spot to allow them to get RAC...like Moss did against the Cardinals on the exact same play?

To me, that's Morton not initially building in those passing plays into the final game plan and ROMAN not having game/situational awareness and not going with the "flow" of what the defense is giving you. Another poster brought up the lack of setting defenses up (the chess match). We could have run slants off that all day until they committed to finally stopping it...then do a slant and go. I don't know off the top of my head if I've ever seen Roman or the game plan set up the defense.

Now it's so dumbed down, we run a fly sweep (as a decoy) and just run Gore/Hunter up the middle for next to nothing (b/c the motion pinches the defense closer to the LOS and tighter in the box). This is OK as long as you THEN come back to that same formation and ACTUALLY run a fly sweep. This should get you huge yards and catch the defense flat-footed.

Game plan + Roman = Fail (esp. every 3rd game).
Still better than Jim Hostler, Jimmy Raye II, and even Mike "the mad scientist" Martz.
Originally posted by fanmusclecars:
Still better than Jim Hostler, Jimmy Raye II, and even Mike "the mad scientist" Martz.

Don't forget Mike McCarthy whom the zone couldn't wait to get rid of and actually laughed at GB for hiring him as the HC.
Originally posted by kingairta:
Originally posted by fanmusclecars:
Still better than Jim Hostler, Jimmy Raye II, and even Mike "the mad scientist" Martz.

Don't forget Mike McCarthy whom the zone couldn't wait to get rid of and actually laughed at GB for hiring him as the HC.

Part of the reason why McCarthy wasn't so successful here was because of...



  • Jcool
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 13,186
Originally posted by PTulini:
Part of the reason why McCarthy wasn't so successful here was because of...




This is more why:

It's going to be interesting in San Francisco," Meyer said. "Alex is an extremely quick learner. However, he's a guy that, until he understands it, he is nonfunctional. He is a guy that -- I keep hearing how Brett Favre kind of makes something out of nothing and is a person that runs around to make a play -- Alex Smith is not that kind of player. Alex Smith is a person that, once he is taught, has to learn it all. He might struggle early, but once he gets it, he gets it."
Rather see what James and Jenkins has to offer than CK in the game today, cause when CK fails again this season, AS will have some new toys to play with.
[ Edited by HOF49er on Dec 9, 2012 at 7:56 AM ]
Originally posted by Jcool:
Originally posted by PTulini:
Part of the reason why McCarthy wasn't so successful here was because of...




This is more why:

It's going to be interesting in San Francisco," Meyer said. "Alex is an extremely quick learner. However, he's a guy that, until he understands it, he is nonfunctional. He is a guy that -- I keep hearing how Brett Favre kind of makes something out of nothing and is a person that runs around to make a play -- Alex Smith is not that kind of player. Alex Smith is a person that, once he is taught, has to learn it all. He might struggle early, but once he gets it, he gets it."

I agree with this...Alex FINALLY is 1.5 years into the same offense, any offense, and then he's pulled. We'll never know what he could have been like after 3+ years in it. In fact, I would have loved to see him reach a stage where he could have called the majority of the plays, if not all, like P.Manning. He's that cerebral. He was an expert in this offense after just 1 year...

At this juncture, given how CK's production has steadily declined and we're seeing him coached "down" it's becoming more and more obvious that our game plan and poor in-game play calling, adjustments and situational awareness is having the biggest effect on our QB's and playmakers, IMHO.

Hopefully that changes today now that Roman has been in the spotlight this week given the Ginn option toss back, another loss to the Rams, a young QB at the head of the media and Harbaugh being forced to take responsibility (for the play call) and address it.

Hopefully, the Rams game ends up being a blessing in disguise and we start to show progression vs. regression going forward...
[ Edited by NCommand on Dec 9, 2012 at 8:42 AM ]