MDH Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Actually, he's a great offensive mind. Mularkey is braindead by comparison. Martz knows how to bring the best out of his QB's and receivers. The Bills have had a long standing tradition of getting the least out of theirs. He needs to be counterbalanced by a top defensive coordinator and a GM with authority. That may happen at his next stop. The biggest negative with him is that he gets his QB's killed, but one of his biggest strengths is being able to identify and develop QB's. 539526[/snapback] He puts points up on the board but at the expense of the rest of the team. How many years did he ignore the running game when he had the best back in the league in Faulk? His philosophy is a risk taking one that equals a lot of short fields for the D and not a lot of time taken off the clock meaning the D is left out to dry. Putting up a lot of points is good and the surface it appears that if you do so you're doing your job as an OC but there's more to offense than simply scoring points (as odd as that may sound). The last guy I'd want coaching this team is Martz. He seems so obsessed with being considered an "offensive genius" that he puts everything else at risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 I think a big part of martz ignoring the run game after vermeil left is that marshall faulk just got old and worn down and they were unable to rely on him. Yes it was a little overboard but marshall just couldn't cut it anymore, and yeah he could've used stephen jackson more last season then he did, but I can't really fault him for lack of a run game. Every qb martz has touched has turned to gold, or at least been good. Brad Johnson, Trent Green, Kurt Warner, Marc Bulger among others. If he could do the same for JP Losman why not? Edit: As an offensive coordinator not as a head coach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 He puts points up on the board but at the expense of the rest of the team. How many years did he ignore the running game when he had the best back in the league in Faulk? His philosophy is a risk taking one that equals a lot of short fields for the D and not a lot of time taken off the clock meaning the D is left out to dry. Putting up a lot of points is good and the surface it appears that if you do so you're doing your job as an OC but there's more to offense than simply scoring points (as odd as that may sound). The last guy I'd want coaching this team is Martz. He seems so obsessed with being considered an "offensive genius" that he puts everything else at risk. 539616[/snapback] 52-28. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester43 Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 isn't the whole reason we got bobby april because martz fired him? hm...yeah i'm sure bobby'd want to be reunited with mr. charm here in buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 52-28. 539645[/snapback] So are you saying that you want him as the coach, or not? And would you prefer him to Mariucci? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 52-28. 539645[/snapback] In the NFC West. Mike Mularkey is undefeated against the NFC West. Draw your own conclusions therein.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 So are you saying that you want him as the coach, or not? And would you prefer him to Mariucci? 539651[/snapback] i think he understands offense, in the sense that you can't score many points if you plan offenses around (as mularkey does) the classic 14 play drive. that works -- and it's a beautiful thing -- if your o-line has been together for 5 years, but as we know, that's not how it works in today's nfl. as for comparing him with mariucci, i do actually think he's done more with less, and has weathered the transition to a new regime better than mooch did. do i want him to be the coach of the bills? i have no idea. i haven't thought enough about it. by the way, how did you get to work today? i biked -- it was a trip! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 In the NFC West. Mike Mularkey is undefeated against the NFC West. Draw your own conclusions therein.... 539653[/snapback] well, it's better to win games against your own division opponents - however sorry they may or may not be - than against, say, tougher afc teams. building a team to consistently beat your rivals and closest enemies is a good thing. it tends to give you a bye in the playoffs. p.s. it's not as if the bills didn't rack up lots of wins against the pats, colts, and jets in the early 90s. it worked out for them -- homefield advantage in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 i think he understands offense, in the sense that you can't score many points if you plan offenses around (as mularkey does) the classic 14 play drive. that works -- and it's a beautiful thing -- if your o-line has been together for 5 years, but as we know, that's not how it works in today's nfl. as for comparing him with mariucci, i do actually think he's done more with less, and has weathered the transition to a new regime better than mooch did. do i want him to be the coach of the bills? i have no idea. i haven't thought enough about it. by the way, how did you get to work today? i biked -- it was a trip! 539661[/snapback] More with less? Holt, Bruce, Faulk, Davis, Pace. That ain't less and Green, Warner, and Bulger ain't chopped liver. He also plays half or more of his games in a dome. I can only imagine how well his very technical and difficult to learn offense would work with 40 MPH crosswinds. Mike Martz would be a disaster in Buffalo. An absolute disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 More with less? Holt, Bruce, Faulk, Davis, Pace. That ain't less and Green, Warner, and Bulger ain't chopped liver. He also plays half or more of his games in a dome. I can only imagine how well his very technical and difficult to learn offense would work with 40 MPH crosswinds. Mike Martz would be a disaster in Buffalo. An absolute disaster. 539667[/snapback] aside from pace, he lost pretty much the entire offensive line. bulger was a 6th round nobody. faulk hasn't produced big numbers since 01. as for the dome thing, his opponents play in that dome too. i'm not saying i want him, it's just that i always felt that the vitriolic criticism directed at him was, well, a little crazy. so he doesn't take special teams seriously. really, is that that big of a deal? the bills have great -- and i truly mean great -- special teams this year. what in god's name has it done for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 aside from pace, he lost pretty much the entire offensive line. bulger was a 6th round nobody. faulk hasn't produced big numbers since 01. as for the dome thing, his opponents play in that dome too. i'm not saying i want him, it's just that i always felt that the vitriolic criticism directed at him was, well, a little crazy. so he doesn't take special teams seriously. really, is that that big of a deal? the bills have great -- and i truly mean great -- special teams this year. what in god's name has it done for them? 539677[/snapback] Special teams won the Patriots all three of their Super Bowls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Special teams won the Patriots all three of their Super Bowls. 539681[/snapback] i might agree with you the first year, but in the second super bowl run, vinatieri went 1 for 4 in field goals in the sb. the offense won it for them. as for last year, i don't recall the special teams doing anything remarkable. pretty ho hum, actually. it was all the offense and the defense ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 i might agree with you the first year, but in the second super bowl run, vinatieri went 1 for 4 in field goals in the sb. the offense won it for them. as for last year, i don't recall the special teams doing anything remarkable. pretty ho hum, actually. it was all the offense and the defense ... 539687[/snapback] They won each game by three points, two in the last few seconds and one in the fourth quarter. You really don't mean special teams aren't all that important, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 They won each game by three points, two in the last few seconds and one in the fourth quarter. You really don't mean special teams aren't all that important, do you? 539710[/snapback] i'm not saying that it's insignificant, but that it's a distant third to offense and defense. as for their 3 point victories, come on -- last year, vinatieri nailed an easy one, and the year before he missed some easy ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 52-28. 539645[/snapback] He inherited a SB winning team. He rode that roster to some impressive winning seasons. Once that roster faded what has he done? Had 3 non-winning seasons in the past 4 seasons. Really impressive. And yeah, I tag this abysmal season on him. He's obviously a better coach but I compare him riding that roster to Barry Swtizer riding the Cowboy's roster...yet somehow Switzer managed to snag a SB win before being run out of town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 i'm not saying that it's insignificant, but that it's a distant third to offense and defense. as for their 3 point victories, come on -- last year, vinatieri nailed an easy one, and the year before he missed some easy ones. 539724[/snapback] The only difference between the Bills being the Super Bowl champs in 1991, and perhaps a dynasty, and the Patriots being Super Bowls champs in 2001 and then a dynasty, was that Scott Norwood missed a 45+ yard FG with a few seconds left by a foot, and Adam Vinateri made a 45+ yard FG with a few seconds left by a foot. Your life and mindset is significantly different because of special teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 aside from pace, he lost pretty much the entire offensive line. bulger was a 6th round nobody. faulk hasn't produced big numbers since 01. as for the dome thing, his opponents play in that dome too. i'm not saying i want him, it's just that i always felt that the vitriolic criticism directed at him was, well, a little crazy. so he doesn't take special teams seriously. really, is that that big of a deal? the bills have great -- and i truly mean great -- special teams this year. what in god's name has it done for them? 539677[/snapback] OK, Faulk hasn't produced big numbers since 2001. The Rams record: 2002: 7-9 (23rd in points scored in the NFL) 2003: 12-3 2004: 8-8 (19th in points scored in the NFL) I don't see where a QB is drafted means anything. He doesn't take special teams seriously, which has cost the Rams time and again. I remember a game in Buffalo last season that turned on special teams play. I'm not sure what his opponents playing in a dome means, because I was referring to the way his offense is structured. It would be a disaster late in the season in Buffalo when the winds are blowing to try and throw the ball 35 times every game. It's amazing to me that people who obviously never watch another team play with more than a passing glance can like a guy who coaches in almost the exact same manner as a guy they hate. Mike Martz is like Mike Mularkey with a bit more experience. Dumpmartz.com - Oh, how the RAMS fans love him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted December 22, 2005 Author Share Posted December 22, 2005 He inherited a SB winning team. He rode that roster to some impressive winning seasons. Once that roster faded what has he done? Had 3 non-winning seasons in the past 4 seasons. Really impressive. And yeah, I tag this abysmal season on him. He's obviously a better coach but I compare him riding that roster to Barry Swtizer riding the Cowboy's roster...yet somehow Switzer managed to snag a SB win before being run out of town. 539726[/snapback] i tried to tell him the same thing, he's just not going to get it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted December 22, 2005 Author Share Posted December 22, 2005 Where is this Martz talk coming from? Was there an article suggesting him as a coach or something? 539267[/snapback] it came from nowhere but my own noggin.......i'm just worried somehow it could get worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMIEBUF12 Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 why would we ever even consider him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts