There are 212 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Greg Roman, is he really good?

  • Salty
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 21
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
"If you compare Greg Roman's result in the Super Bowl to Bill...." oh wait.


And yeah, the two era's are completely alike of course, nothing has changed about the game in 30 years, nothing at all, all the rules are exactly the same. Absolutely nothing that would make it any easier for offense's to score points in bunches has transpired.


Bill Walsh apparently was completely dumbfounded by calling plays in the red zone too.

Your sarcasm meter must be turned off.. I was eluding to your ...xcuses comment

seriously tho, you honestly sound like you think you could do a better job calling plays than greg roman. you should ease off the hatred just a lil
[ Edited by Salty on Oct 16, 2013 at 11:42 AM ]
Originally posted by Salty:
Sproles can block catch and runs great routes. Lamichael James has shown very little ability to do anything but run

He's had little opportunity to do anything BUT run, and when they do have him run, they call plays basically the same as they would for Gore or Hunter, completely different style of runners.
  • Salty
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 21
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
He's had little opportunity to do anything BUT run, and when they do have him run, they call plays basically the same as they would for Gore or Hunter, completely different style of runners.

You realize that the opportunities you are afforded in games are the ones you earn in practice, correct? Obviously you think he's a good player. Perhaps the guys coaching him do not.
[ Edited by Salty on Oct 16, 2013 at 11:40 AM ]
  • Salty
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 21
and for the record, I would love to see LMJ in a sproles type role, but only if the coaches think he is a player that can impact the game. If not, he shouldn't be out there
Originally posted by verb1der:
Originally posted by thl408:
Originally posted by verb1der:
Originally posted by fropwns:
I like Roman. Apparently some of you have once again been sippin' from the cup of our past. NOBODY ON THIS STAFF IS CLOSE TO BILL WALSH. Have you guys forgot about the decade of defeat?

This. I like Roman too.


The "bring back the WCO offense" theme is an old man's argument. It brings nothing new to a discussion other than to make people reminisce of the past.

I like Roman too. My only gripe is that he has not shown an ability to adjust in-game strategy. He'll have a clear plan going into a game, but if it doesn't work, he does not scrap the original plan and go towards a different direction.

Myself and NCommand has mentioned the lack of WCO concepts, and you may be right, it may just be nostalgia that causes us to want the WCO. However, I truly believe that a WCO passing attack is the best type of offense there is, and it's not just because I'm a 49er fan and remember the glory days. It is a high percentage, effective way to control the clock using the passing game. If Harbaugh is about ball control, then the WCO can help achieve that. The passing attack right now is the opposite of ball control. It is an explosive passing game that picks up big chunks of yardage, effective in its own right.

Ideally, when Kap reaches his peak, whenever that may be, I'd like the offense to be adaptable and execute any type of passing attack. Use WCO passes to set up the vertical strike.

I see what you mean, and I agree. I just think that our running game is our bread and butter and it trumps the old WCO philosophy when it comes "ball control" type situations.

Just imagine if Bill Walsh had Frank Gore, I bet you the WCO would be completely different.

It would! Gore would be a 1,000 runner and receiver. Kidding! Maybe...

I think we bring up the WCO b/c Roman said himself that he was emersing himself in all the old tapes and would be employing it. That said, I can't name a single WCO play or principal installed, can you? Quite he opposite in fact. We start games slow...the WCO is predicated on perfection/production through repitition and even rehearse the first 20 plays to get both the QB and receivers in rhythm early/often. Sometimes we don't "click" until the 2nd half. 3, 5 or 7-step drops? Nope. Quick slant? Timing, precision, post routes, 3-level WR-tree? Nope. Outlets on every passing play? Nope. Zone blocking? I-fomation? Nope. CK himself isn't anything CLOSE to a WCO QB.

So we feel dooped. Lied too...rich in Niner tradition...a tradition that we know not only works but is still working in the NFL today (modified or not, the principals are still the same).

So like you said, this is a Bo S. offense founded in a creative and dynamic ground game complimented by a big-play passing game. I think, we should tailor our expectations. I think it's reached it's limits in the NFL but hope I'm wrong. The good teams will find relatively easy ways to stop it...we'll win big or we'll lose big.

Either way, by design, I don't expect much from a 2nd RB, TE or even WR (even with Crabtree) in this offense. That's not how it's built. If you want the ball, you are going to have to be in the "annointed receiver/runner playbook/game plan." So for you FF guys/gals, pick Gore, VD & Boldin and you'll be good.
  • Salty
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 21
Originally posted by NCommand:
It would! Gore would be a 1,000 runner and receiver. Kidding! Maybe...

I think we bring up the WCO b/c Roman said himself that he was emersing himself in all the old tapes and would be employing it. That said, I can't name a single WCO play or principal installed, can you? Quite he opposite in fact. We start games slow...the WCO is predicated on perfection/production through repitition and even rehearse the first 20 plays to get both the QB and receivers in rhythm early/often. Sometimes we don't "click" until the 2nd half. 3, 5 or 7-step drops? Nope. Quick slant? Timing, precision, post routes, 3-level WR-tree? Nope. Outlets on every passing play? Nope. Zone blocking? I-fomation? Nope. CK himself isn't anything CLOSE to a WCO QB.

So we feel dooped. Lied too...rich in Niner tradition...a tradition that we know not only works but is still working in the NFL today (modified or not, the principals are still the same).

So like you said, this is a Bo S. offense founded in a creative and dynamic ground game complimented by a big-play passing game. I think, we should tailor our expectations. I think it's reached it's limits in the NFL but hope I'm wrong. The good teams will find relatively easy ways to stop it...we'll win big or we'll lose big.

Either way, by design, I don't expect much from a 2nd RB, TE or even WR (even with Crabtree) in this offense. That's not how it's built. If you want the ball, you are going to have to be in the "annointed receiver/runner playbook/game plan." So for you FF guys/gals, pick Gore, VD & Boldin and you'll be good.

I think you are off the mark here. Vernon and Boldin get open, that's why they get the ball. Last year when we had Crabtree, Manningham and Hunter all healthy we were spreading the ball around a lot. Our problems is that we don't have impact players on the perimeter that allow offenses to be versatile. Beyond Boldin, we don't have a single WR that would make an impact on any team in the NFL
[ Edited by Salty on Oct 16, 2013 at 12:44 PM ]
Originally posted by Salty:
Originally posted by NCommand:
It would! Gore would be a 1,000 runner and receiver. Kidding! Maybe...

I think we bring up the WCO b/c Roman said himself that he was emersing himself in all the old tapes and would be employing it. That said, I can't name a single WCO play or principal installed, can you? Quite he opposite in fact. We start games slow...the WCO is predicated on perfection/production through repitition and even rehearse the first 20 plays to get both the QB and receivers in rhythm early/often. Sometimes we don't "click" until the 2nd half. 3, 5 or 7-step drops? Nope. Quick slant? Timing, precision, post routes, 3-level WR-tree? Nope. Outlets on every passing play? Nope. Zone blocking? I-fomation? Nope. CK himself isn't anything CLOSE to a WCO QB.

So we feel dooped. Lied too...rich in Niner tradition...a tradition that we know not only works but is still working in the NFL today (modified or not, the principals are still the same).

So like you said, this is a Bo S. offense founded in a creative and dynamic ground game complimented by a big-play passing game. I think, we should tailor our expectations. I think it's reached it's limits in the NFL but hope I'm wrong. The good teams will find relatively easy ways to stop it...we'll win big or we'll lose big.

Either way, by design, I don't expect much from a 2nd RB, TE or even WR (even with Crabtree) in this offense. That's not how it's built. If you want the ball, you are going to have to be in the "annointed receiver/runner playbook/game plan." So for you FF guys/gals, pick Gore, VD & Boldin and you'll be good.

I think you are off the mark here. Vernon and Boldin get open, that's why they get the ball. Last year when we had Crabtree, Manningham and Hunter all healthy we were spreading the ball around a lot. Our problems is that we don't have impact players on the perimeter that allow offenses to be versatile. Beyond Boldin, we don't have a single WR that would make an impact on any team in the NFL

Please go back and read post #268 in this thread. And no, VD and Boldin are not always open but the play call dicates the pass...the annointed receiver; it's pre-determined. And the numbers demonstrate it as such. This is a college, anti-WCO one-read offense "schemed" to get one receiver the ball or quick pass to who HaRoMan trust the most to beat one-on-one in under 3 seconds. This is an all-or-nothing offense. That is how its designed and when we win, we'll typically win big but if the defense (like Seattle) figures us out, we'll lose big too. This is NOT a progression-read offense with multiple receiver options at three levels like a WCO (just as an example). As another, the old Rams and current spread offenses, outlets, or "hot reads" are built into their systems. We are not built like this. Period.
[ Edited by NCommand on Oct 16, 2013 at 12:59 PM ]
Whatever Command just said...is what I meant. The "why" of it puzzles me, because thanks to jH and esp Trent, we have talent galore, and guys sitting on the bench come in and they are starters too. So where do you look for the ""why" or maybe the "what for". If you make a list of NC's questions above about RB Outlet passes, multiple read receivers, etc, ,one can only ask why not .So a while back I came up with a couple thots. One is that roman wants to establish something HIS way or the hiway, and by God, if it doesn't fit his plans, then we don't use it. I feel like he thinks of WCO as a dirty word. He wants to win with the big ball football. Well, I guess if you look at the Cards game, that is how we won...well maybe with a little help from frank on that fascinating 89 yd 18 play drive(I've never seen one before). But the balance of the game was big ball..ie, go long and go strong.

Like NC said, you either win big or you get your nutz toasted...like up in SEA. Here against a vastly less talented team, we beat them worse than the score suggests. But like they say, a W is a W. It is the INDY, the SEA games that you have to win, and with roman's one receiver offense, you don't win that way. You have to beat the great teams with the WCO now, like it or not. So what's the deal with Roman? Simply, I think he is trying to make a name for himself, and winning the big ones be damned. In college, at U of Texas, you have to have a winning season AND you have to beat OKLAHOMA every yr in Dallas. Coach Mack Brown had his career at an end if he didn't win that game. I think roman has a college mentality where you win most of your games, but if you don't win it all, jeez, you did win 11, maybe 12 games. And no college coach gets fired with 11 or 12 wins.

Therefore, I believe roman's offense is designed to always win 10, maybe 11 or 12 games....BUT THAT IS IT. He isn't really thinking SB, he is a college coach thinking WINNING SEASON. So what if we lost to INDY and SEA? We get our 10-12 wins, and it is a winning yr. That is what I think roman is about. Having a routinely winning yr, and knowing that some of those we are going to lose with the no progression offense . So if we win it all this yr, it will be in spite of roman, not because of him. The only answer I see is dumping roman and getting someone with an outlook like the OC for AZ (Ken Whisenhunt), a former HC himself. He would be my ideal pick for an OC. I cannot see roman being asked back here next yr, even if we have a winning season. Because that is all he wants. More Ws than Ls. I don't think SB even crosses his mind.

This may be a very simplistic view of why we need to jettison some baggage that is keeping us from going to the SB. My first choice for OC is Coach H. He has all the tools, and is smart , clever. Right now he is letting roman run things but at end of yr he is going to wonder why aren't we in the SB? And my answer is his right hand man, roman. So GO ROMAN....GO VERY FAR, FAR AWAY. As to the question , is he good? I would say if you want more Ws than Ls yes.
If you want the SB, NO WAY. May be sacrilege, but I cannot wait til he is gone.
[ Edited by pasodoc9er on Oct 16, 2013 at 5:29 PM ]
  • cciowa
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 27,076
Originally posted by Salty:
If Crabtree hadn't been held on 4th down it would have been the greatest comeback in superbowl history. You are in a nutshell saying that unless an OC has won a superbowl he's worthless. It was also Roman's playcalling that got us within 5 yards of a superbowl title.

Maybe Lamichael James just can't remember the playbook. Or Maybe he's not very good. Or maybe he's in the doghouse because he's an a*****e.

ahhhh,, when all else fails we roll out the refs screwed us theory,, on a ball that was uncatchable. if roman had his head on right and ran the ball on second and third, it never would have come down to fourth down. of all the excuses out there for roman, this one is the king of the built in excuses designed to give cover to roman and not hold him accountable for his bungling in the most important game of them all. a run by gore got us to the 7, james got us to the five,,, then what did roman do? the run game is working,, so naturally we go away from it so he can get cute and show the world he knows everything,,.,. we see exactly where that took us. i understand that in my nutshell world my view is not to good but ray charles could see what was going on there
Salty in the preceding page you mention LMj can't block, run of catch a pass. I might point out all he has been asked to do so far is run between the tackles. On the depth chart he is our #4 RB. So all YOU have seen is him running between tackles...and no question , he does not do that very well. But what you haven't seen is LMJ in the backfield getting outlet passes, or going in motion and getting more backfield passes. Where does he execl? Right. IN SPACE. How many times have you seen him lined up wide of Kap? How many times have you see him sneak thru the LOS on a delay and catch an 5 yarder? How many times have you seen him lined up in trips wide with Vernon and Boldin? Answers to every question is NEVER, because roman doesn't want to do that. ON Mon nite football, so even roman could see it, sproles put on a show on how to use speedy, small RBs. He was outlet pass receiver 5 or 6 times. He delayed in backfield and took a 5 yd pass for 20 yds. He was great in space. He scored two TDs and had 105 yds of receptions in first half. Now why hasn't LMJ been used that way when it is obvious. that is how he could help us.? Answer...because roman doesn't like that concept.

C'mon, you guys who are roman apologists. We got a sproles type back, dam fast and sneaky quick, he should have been used this way since last yr and yet....and yet, roman refuses to do so. Is it because LMJ can't catch or can't run in space? Krapola....how are we EVER going to know if he isn't tried that way.? Look...nobody takes a 2nd rd pick as a 4th RB. I am certain trent and JH took him as a sproles like back...yet roman refuses to even try him there. And that, folks is a disgrace, and shame on coach H for not calling roman on it. I say again. Let roman go and let Coach H call plays. He was a QB , a QB coach and HC at Stanford, and now is our hC and a damn fine one. HE is the guy who SHOULD be calling play...not roman. Is roman a good OC? yup, if you are happy with more Ws than Ls each yr. Against the tough teams, we can't compete with roman's asinine play calls. (1st game for Kap last yr in SEA....3 long bombs in rain , mud and slop and we go 3 and out from our 15. We punt, they score , then again, and again and again). Coaching lost that game on the first 4 calls of the game. And it doesn't bother him that "his" O can't beat great teams. Roman is a college OC. I say put him back there. Woe be it to the unfortunate team that makes him HC. It will be short, like a yr.and then gone.

I just wish it were right now.
Originally posted by cciowa:
Originally posted by Salty:
If Crabtree hadn't been held on 4th down it would have been the greatest comeback in superbowl history. You are in a nutshell saying that unless an OC has won a superbowl he's worthless. It was also Roman's playcalling that got us within 5 yards of a superbowl title.

Maybe Lamichael James just can't remember the playbook. Or Maybe he's not very good. Or maybe he's in the doghouse because he's an a*****e.

ahhhh,, when all else fails we roll out the refs screwed us theory,, on a ball that was uncatchable. if roman had his head on right and ran the ball on second and third, it never would have come down to fourth down. of all the excuses out there for roman, this one is the king of the built in excuses designed to give cover to roman and not hold him accountable for his bungling in the most important game of them all. a run by gore got us to the 7, james got us to the five,,, then what did roman do? the run game is working,, so naturally we go away from it so he can get cute and show the world he knows everything,,.,. we see exactly where that took us. i understand that in my nutshell world my view is not to good but ray charles could see what was going on there

cciowa, you're going to hate me for this one but: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDx0q1zwe1w
  • cciowa
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 27,076
Originally posted by NCommand:
cciowa, you're going to hate me for this one but: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDx0q1zwe1w

i absolutely refuse to click on it i am already worked up because some people went insane we cut some wide out who never plays for us today
Originally posted by cciowa:
Originally posted by NCommand:
cciowa, you're going to hate me for this one but: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDx0q1zwe1w

i absolutely refuse to click on it i am already worked up because some people went insane we cut some wide out who never plays for us today

LOL! It was more of a joke. It's sport science episode on "proof" that Crabtree not only would have caught that TD in the Superbowl but would have even had to hold up a bit and wait for it IF he wasn't held for the 8+ yards or so. Pretty interesting. And the guy they got to re-enact the WR-role? Crabtree himself!
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by cciowa:
Originally posted by Salty:
If Crabtree hadn't been held on 4th down it would have been the greatest comeback in superbowl history. You are in a nutshell saying that unless an OC has won a superbowl he's worthless. It was also Roman's playcalling that got us within 5 yards of a superbowl title.

Maybe Lamichael James just can't remember the playbook. Or Maybe he's not very good. Or maybe he's in the doghouse because he's an a*****e.

ahhhh,, when all else fails we roll out the refs screwed us theory,, on a ball that was uncatchable. if roman had his head on right and ran the ball on second and third, it never would have come down to fourth down. of all the excuses out there for roman, this one is the king of the built in excuses designed to give cover to roman and not hold him accountable for his bungling in the most important game of them all. a run by gore got us to the 7, james got us to the five,,, then what did roman do? the run game is working,, so naturally we go away from it so he can get cute and show the world he knows everything,,.,. we see exactly where that took us. i understand that in my nutshell world my view is not to good but ray charles could see what was going on there

cciowa, you're going to hate me for this one but: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDx0q1zwe1w

OUCH
Originally posted by jcashen87:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by cciowa:
Originally posted by Salty:
If Crabtree hadn't been held on 4th down it would have been the greatest comeback in superbowl history. You are in a nutshell saying that unless an OC has won a superbowl he's worthless. It was also Roman's playcalling that got us within 5 yards of a superbowl title.

Maybe Lamichael James just can't remember the playbook. Or Maybe he's not very good. Or maybe he's in the doghouse because he's an a*****e.

ahhhh,, when all else fails we roll out the refs screwed us theory,, on a ball that was uncatchable. if roman had his head on right and ran the ball on second and third, it never would have come down to fourth down. of all the excuses out there for roman, this one is the king of the built in excuses designed to give cover to roman and not hold him accountable for his bungling in the most important game of them all. a run by gore got us to the 7, james got us to the five,,, then what did roman do? the run game is working,, so naturally we go away from it so he can get cute and show the world he knows everything,,.,. we see exactly where that took us. i understand that in my nutshell world my view is not to good but ray charles could see what was going on there

cciowa, you're going to hate me for this one but: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDx0q1zwe1w

OUCH
yeah CC will always blame the OC ...The Refs never affect the game ever...ever