Proteus Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 Also enough with the point that our offense was bad so we should have gone with an offensive minded guy. People who say this must be casual fans.
BenchBledsoe Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 I agree completely with the OP. Bringing in Rex, and going back to the defensive scheme of 2013, and letting Schwartz walk is a step-backwards. Period. The proof is that our defense was much better in 2014 than 2013. Moving Dareus to DE or NT is not his strength. The 4-3 fits our personnel better. Mario now will have to basically play OLB, which he is on record as saying he doesn't like. I'm stunned at the overwhelming percentage of posters who like this hire. Logic says it is backwards. We took our strength (defense) and changed it, and didn't address our offensive weakness nearly enough. Those who think Roman is a savior must not have watched SF games much. Mike Shannahan or Gary Kubiak would have supplied instant ground game improvement, along with keeping Schwartz and the defense the same, would have made more logical sense. A "flashy" hire that doesn't address your biggest weakness, just because a guy makes for an entertaining interview, is ridiculous.
thewildrabbit Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 Rex Ryan, different zip code, different uni, same situation with a good defense / bad offense. To those not comprehending why some are complaining about this hire, allow me to reiterate. The defense was already a #3 unit in the NFL. A championship caliber defense, so the only thing Rex Ryan adds to the equation is a big mouth!
Proteus Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 I agree completely with the OP. Bringing in Rex, and going back to the defensive scheme of 2013, and letting Schwartz walk is a step-backwards. Period. The proof is that our defense was much better in 2014 than 2013. Moving Dareus to DE or NT is not his strength. The 4-3 fits our personnel better. Mario now will have to basically play OLB, which he is on record as saying he doesn't like. I'm stunned at the overwhelming percentage of posters who like this hire. Logic says it is backwards. We took our strength (defense) and changed it, and didn't address our offensive weakness nearly enough. Those who think Roman is a savior must not have watched SF games much. Mike Shannahan or Gary Kubiak would have supplied instant ground game improvement, along with keeping Schwartz and the defense the same, would have made more logical sense. A "flashy" hire that doesn't address your biggest weakness, just because a guy makes for an entertaining interview, is ridiculous. So you would have been happy with Norv Turner as the Head Coach because he is an "offensive guy"? This notion that when hiring a head coach you should always go with a guy on the side of the ball you were weaker on is complete garbage. Also what SF games are you talking about? The playoff games over the last 3 season including the 3 conference championships and the Super Bowl where they were one play away from winning? Are those the SF games you are talking about? Rex Ryan, different zip code, different uni, same situation with a good defense / bad offense. To those not comprehending why some are complaining about this hire, allow me to reiterate. The defense was already a #3 unit in the NFL. A championship caliber defense, so the only thing Rex Ryan adds to the equation is a big mouth! Yet again the completely ridiculous concept that your new head coach has to come from the side of the ball you are weaker on.
BenchBledsoe Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 So you would have been happy with Norv Turner as the Head Coach because he is an "offensive guy"? This notion that when hiring a head coach you should always go with a guy on the side of the ball you were weaker on is complete garbage. Also what SF games are you talking about? The playoff games over the last 3 season including the 3 conference championships and the Super Bowl where they were one play away from winning? Are those the SF games you are talking about? Yet again the completely ridiculous concept that your new head coach has to come from the side of the ball you are weaker on. Did I say anything about Norv Turner? I said Shannahan and Kubiak. Baltimore's running game was bottom 5 in 2013 without Kubiak and once he gets there, Justin freakin' Forsett averages 5 and a half per carry. If we wanted to fix the running game Kubiak was the answer. Remember when Denver would plug in any RB and they'd just keep on leading the league in rushing? San Francisco made it to all of those big games based on their defense, not their offense. They have no rings lately because the offense wasn't good enough. In our case, when the defense is good as it is, I think they should have brought in an offensive minded coach and left the defense alone. Who says bringing in a coach on the side of the ball that is weaker is a ridiculous concept? You?? What makes you an expert? Also enough with the point that our offense was bad so we should have gone with an offensive minded guy. People who say this must be casual fans. The converse of this is that if you have a bad offense you need to bring in a defensive minded guy. . . What kind of logic is that??
Proteus Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) Did I say anything about Norv Turner? I said Shannahan and Kubiak. Baltimore's running game was bottom 5 in 2013 without Kubiak and once he gets there, Justin freakin' Forsett averages 5 and a half per carry. If we wanted to fix the running game Kubiak was the answer. Remember when Denver would plug in any RB and they'd just keep on leading the league in rushing? San Francisco made it to all of those big games based on their defense, not their offense. They have no rings lately because the offense wasn't good enough. In our case, when the defense is good as it is, I think they should have brought in an offensive minded coach and left the defense alone. Who says bringing in a coach on the side of the ball that is weaker is a ridiculous concept? You?? What makes you an expert? So because we didn't get Shannahan or Kubiak (who is turning down interviews to stay as Baltimore OC) the Rex signing is a failure? Also San Fran made it to all those big games because of their defense in a league where defense can only take you so far? It's funny that you say their defense carried them because in the year they went to the Super Bowl they beat Green Bay in the divisional round 45-31, then Atlanta in the NFC Championship 28-24, while losing the Super Bowl 34-31. Without a doubt that is all defense right there. The offense had nothing to do with the team averaging 35 points per game in the playoffs that year, nothing at all. Also pigeon holding yourself to a offensive or defensive coach based on whichever side you were weaker at that season is pure idocy. You go get the best leader you can find and if he coaches the side of the ball you are good at, so be it. Did I say anything about Norv Turner? I said Shannahan and Kubiak. Baltimore's running game was bottom 5 in 2013 without Kubiak and once he gets there, Justin freakin' Forsett averages 5 and a half per carry. If we wanted to fix the running game Kubiak was the answer. Remember when Denver would plug in any RB and they'd just keep on leading the league in rushing? San Francisco made it to all of those big games based on their defense, not their offense. They have no rings lately because the offense wasn't good enough. In our case, when the defense is good as it is, I think they should have brought in an offensive minded coach and left the defense alone. Who says bringing in a coach on the side of the ball that is weaker is a ridiculous concept? You?? What makes you an expert? The converse of this is that if you have a bad offense you need to bring in a defensive minded guy. . . What kind of logic is that?? The logic that if you just hire an "offensive guy" and he will fix the offense is pretty much the worst logic there is. Edited January 13, 2015 by Proteus
BenchBledsoe Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 So because we didn't get Shannahan or Kubiak (who is turning down interviews to stay as Baltimore OC) the Rex signing is a failure? Also San Fran made it to all those big games because of their defense in a league where defense can only take you so far? It's funny that you say their defense carried them because in the year they went to the Super Bowl they beat Green Bay in the divisional round 45-31, then Atlanta in the NFC Championship 28-24, while losing the Super Bowl 34-31. Without a doubt that is all defense right there. The offense had nothing to do with the team averaging 35 points per game in the playoffs that year, nothing at all. Elway is looking at bringing back his buddy Kubiak to coach Denver. I live in Denver and it's all over the news here. It could happen. Kubiak said he wouldn't leave Baltimore. But if he gets offered the gig in Denver, you think he's going to turn it down? It's the one job he might go back on his words for. Yep, we all know it's been the offense in San Fran and not the defense that has carried them the last few years . . . come on man.
Proteus Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 Elway is looking at bringing back his buddy Kubiak to coach Denver. I live in Denver and it's all over the news here. It could happen. Kubiak said he wouldn't leave Baltimore. But if he gets offered the gig in Denver, you think he's going to turn it down? It's the one job he might go back on his words for. Yep, we all know it's been the offense in San Fran and not the defense that has carried them the last few years . . . come on man. Yea just ignore the facts that I layed out in front of you and create your own reality so your narrative of Roman sucking is upheld.
BenchBledsoe Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) Yea just ignore the facts that I layed out in front of you and create your own reality so your narrative of Roman sucking is upheld. Ok, fact: San Fran ranked 25th in points scored this year. Never said Roman sucks . . . just said he's just average. Edited January 13, 2015 by BenchBledsoe
Proteus Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) Ok, fact: San Fran ranked 25th in points scored this year. Never said Roman sucks . . . just said he's just average. Dude please stop pulling team stats from one year to determine absolutes about coaches. Especailly in a year where everybody knew from the beginning of the season that it was likely the head coach was gone after. Trying to use this one season, this season especially to judge Roman is completely ridiculous and flawed. Edited January 13, 2015 by Proteus
Pete Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 !@#$ capitulate Doug. At least we won't be punting on 4th and 1 from the opponents 40 with 8 minutes left down one score
BenchBledsoe Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 Dude please stop pulling about team stats from one year to determine absolutes about coaches. Especailly in a year where everybody knew from the beginning of the season that it was likely the head coach was gone after. Trying to use this one season, this season especially to judge Roman is completely ridiculous and flawed. Flawed? What? This year doesn't count? Gimme a break. Roman's team's offensive numbers over his four years in SF say he was coaching an average to slightly above (not this year) average offense. It's okay dude. You aren't going to convince me otherwise. The numbers are the numbers. I looked them up. They're pretty average. I'll look at the numbers rather than listen to your personal opinion. But it's cool. Don't sweat it.
K-9 Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 Flawed? What? This year doesn't count? Gimme a break. Roman's team's offensive numbers over his four years in SF say he was coaching an average to slightly above (not this year) average offense. It's okay dude. You aren't going to convince me otherwise. The numbers are the numbers. I looked them up. They're pretty average. I'll look at the numbers rather than listen to your personal opinion. But it's cool. Don't sweat it. No doubt the passing offense was below average, which is not surprising given the QB situation, but SF's rushing offense was WAY above average since he got there. GO BILLS!!!
Proteus Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) Flawed? What? This year doesn't count? Gimme a break. Roman's team's offensive numbers over his four years in SF say he was coaching an average to slightly above (not this year) average offense. It's okay dude. You aren't going to convince me otherwise. The numbers are the numbers. I looked them up. They're pretty average. I'll look at the numbers rather than listen to your personal opinion. But it's cool. Don't sweat it. Every season during Roman's tenure except for this one, they were 11 in the league in points scored. I guess that is average. Edited January 13, 2015 by Proteus
Wayne Cubed Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 No doubt the passing offense was below average, which is not surprising given the QB situation, but SF's rushing offense was WAY above average since he got there. GO BILLS!!! For me, PPG mean very little, there could be a multitude of reasons why they didn't run the score up. YPA, that tells me if the passing offense was successful or working. San Francisco's YPA under Roman were: 16th, 2nd, 7th, 23rd. Buffalo's the last four years: 21st, 24th, 28th, 28th I'd say San Fran was below average this year but was still better than Buffalo's. He also had some very very good years.
thewildrabbit Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 Yet again the completely ridiculous concept that your new head coach has to come from the side of the ball you are weaker on. You know whats completely ridiculous? The 9-7 HC quit, and the Bills hired a 4-12 HC to replace him. Now that is ridiculous!Then thinking a HC that just went 4-12 because he had a good defense, and no QB is going to change anything with his new team....that has an already good defense, and no QB. Like I said, new Uni's, new zip code, same situation. I was just laughing at big mouth Rex this past season when he announced that his Jets were a "zillion ways" better in then their first game against Buffalo. Then his Jets team came to town and was destroyed 38-3. "The Jets were walloped a few short weeks ago, 43-23, by the Bills at MetLife Stadium. This time the Jets won’t have the comfort of their own stadium, but neither will the Bills, as the NFL decided to relocate the game away from Buffalo on Thursday." “Let’s see how much better we are, because we think we’re a lot better, and we’ll need to be,” Ryan said. “The proof will be in the pudding.” In what ways does Ryan think the Jets are better? “In a zillion ways,” he said. “Almost every way.” http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/jets-insider-team-zillion-ways-better-article-1.2018534
Wayne Cubed Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 You know whats completely ridiculous? The 9-7 HC quit, and the Bills hired a 4-12 HC to replace him. Now that is ridiculous!Then thinking a HC that just went 4-12 because he had a good defense, and no QB is going to change anything with his new team....that has an already good defense, and no QB. Like I said, new Uni's, new zip code, same situation. Right, so your argument is the Bills should have hired a HC who is offensive minded and had a successful record last season? Who's that coach? Point him out.
eball Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 Rex and Roman or Marrone and Schwartz -- which do you prefer? Seems like a no-brainer to me.
JeebusCrust Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 and take into account, another good season with a top D and Schwartz gets a nod from someone for HC. Then we lose our DC and we're back to square one. A year ago we went through the same crap. One spin on this is there's going to be a consistent defense for the next few years and the scheme isn't totally unfamiliar. Plus Rex's defense is a bit better at stopping the run than Pettine's was. Thing's will be fine
Recommended Posts