PDA

View Full Version : Are We Getting Marty Ball 2.0?


petegz28
06-07-2006, 02:54 PM
Shorter, faster practices without pads

More emphasis on the running game

Defensive Headcoach implementing and tight zone\cover 2 type D


But we hear the offense won't really change.

Sounds a lot like a lot of 2 TE sets and off tackle running to me since we have no proven FB.

Are we dumping a lot of the AL Saunders arial show plays for more or a Marty ball control type tough D?

Donger
06-07-2006, 02:59 PM
I don't care. You could call it Cinderella's Ball for all I care, as long as the Chiefs have more points on the board at the end of the game.

Calcountry
06-07-2006, 03:02 PM
If Marty had our D, and ran his 90's philosophy, we would be the lousiest team in the league right now.

King_Chief_Fan
06-07-2006, 03:04 PM
Shorter, faster practices without pads

More emphasis on the running game

Defensive Headcoach implementing and tight zone\cover 2 type D


But we hear the offense won't really change.

Sounds a lot like a lot of 2 TE sets and off tackle running to me since we have no proven FB.

Are we dumping a lot of the AL Saunders arial show plays for more or a Marty ball control type tough D?

Marty ball was more successful than DV's show. It wasn't as fun to watch, but it was more effective.

King_Chief_Fan
06-07-2006, 03:05 PM
If Marty had our D, and ran his 90's philosophy, we would be the lousiest team in the league right now.

we never would have had this D. Having a good D is part of marty ball

jlscorpio
06-07-2006, 03:44 PM
If it is, so be it. Saunders couldn't stay here forever. IMO, he'll never be a HC again. We're not the only team that wouldn't hire him. We tried Air Coryell 2K for 4 years. Fun to watch, 0 playoff wins. We have a bad@$$ RB, a bad@$$ O-Line, and a bad@$$ blocking TE. The more we run, the more effective play action will be down the field. Just no more double fake reverse fleaflickers inside the 5, ok?

King_Chief_Fan
06-07-2006, 03:45 PM
......... Just no more double fake reverse fleaflickers inside the 5, ok?
:)

keg in kc
06-07-2006, 03:47 PM
No.

No martyocreball.

Lzen
06-07-2006, 03:50 PM
Would someone please remind me how many SB appearances has Mary made?

SB winning teams need to be dominant in one phase and at least good in the other. With both Mary and Dick Vermeil, we were dominant on one side and below average to terrible on the other side.

Lzen
06-07-2006, 03:51 PM
I just realized that I made a typo by leaving the letter "t" out of Schottenheimer's name. Oh well, I think Mary is a good nickname for him. :D

nychief
06-07-2006, 03:52 PM
how many ****ing times is some one going to ask this question before we see a ****ing regular season play called?

keg in kc
06-07-2006, 03:53 PM
SB winning teams need to be dominant in one phase and at least good in the other. With both Mary and Dick Vermeil, we were dominant on one side and below average to terrible on the other side.Yep, that's one of my favorite points to make.

We've gone from one extreme to the other. The end result was the same. You'd think it wouldn't take 17 years to learn that some semblence of balance is a good thing. Maybe we're just slow.

MOhillbilly
06-07-2006, 03:55 PM
**** it. i like martyball.

run the football and play D.

its not like the DV years of big O took us anywhere.

Donger
06-07-2006, 03:56 PM
Seriously, do any of you guys give a flying squirrel f*ck HOW the Chiefs win?

MOhillbilly
06-07-2006, 03:59 PM
Seriously, do any of you guys give a flying squirrel f*ck HOW the Chiefs win in championship games?


dream alil dream.

keg in kc
06-07-2006, 04:01 PM
Seriously, do any of you guys give a flying squirrel f*ck HOW the Chiefs win?They could send the cheerleaders out in patterns for all I care.

I haven't even seen a playoff win yet. The rest of you guys are lucky to have that 13 year-old memory.

JBucc
06-07-2006, 04:04 PM
I like Martyball better than Dickball. That said under Marty our offense sucked because we had no talent along with a conservative coach. That is no longer the case.

Baby Lee
06-07-2006, 04:06 PM
Would someone please remind me how many SB appearances has Mary made?

SB winning teams need to be dominant in one phase and at least good in the other. With both Mary and Dick Vermeil, we were dominant on one side and below average to terrible on the other side.
Way to lump Marty's average offense in with DV's terrible, record setting terrible, conscience shocking terrible, defense. Almost makes them look equivalent.

keg in kc
06-07-2006, 04:08 PM
I like Martyball better than Dickball. That said under Marty our offense sucked because we had no talent along with a conservative coach. That is no longer the case.I'm opposite. If I'm going to watch a meanigful game lost, I'd rather see a Vermeil--style loss than a Marty-style loss. Although Vermeil at times had Marty tendencies.

The frustrating thing with both of them are coaching decisions that "good" coaches shouldn't make. Either way, I'd much rather watch an aggressive game than a passive one.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-07-2006, 04:11 PM
I'm legitimately terrified of Herman Edwards coaching our team. He sounds like a politician rather than a coach during his press conferences. It's not about kissing the media's ass, it's about utilizing the talent of your team to maximize their effectiveness. If he sits on his thumbs whenever we get a 7 or 10 point lead instead of attacking, I'm going to cut someone's head off with a chainsaw.

KCChiefsFan88
06-07-2006, 04:12 PM
Are we dumping a lot of the AL Saunders arial show plays for more or a Marty ball control type tough D?

Lifeless, Losing, Proven Failure Martyball is back. These losers must be smiling over that very thought

http://www.cantstopthebleeding.com/img/marty1120.jpg


http://www.azstarnet.com/ss/2005/01/20/57709-1.jpg


http://images.google.com/url?q=http://www.raiders.com/uploads/photos/perm/main/OJNHCMLNDIED/raye-coach-2005.jpg

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-07-2006, 04:14 PM
Way to lump Marty's average offense in with DV's terrible, record setting terrible, conscience shocking terrible, defense. Almost makes them look equivalent.

Marty's offense was only average because of the defense. A good defense mediates the problems of a bad offense because they get great field position and extra possesions due to the turnovers caused by the D. A good offense exacerbates the problems of a bad defense, because it causes the other team to open up more.

noa
06-07-2006, 04:14 PM
Yep, that's one of my favorite points to make.

We've gone from one extreme to the other. The end result was the same. You'd think it wouldn't take 17 years to learn that some semblence of balance is a good thing. Maybe we're just slow.


I highly disagree. The end results were not the same at all. Marty had a regular season record of 101-58-1 (.634) including seven playoff appearances and three division titles. Vermiel had a .550 winning percentage with us, only two winning seasons, and only one playoff appearance. Yes its true that we never won the Super Bowl with either coach, but I would much rather be in the playoffs 7 out of 10 years and have a .634 winning percentage than 1 out of 5 years with a .550 winning percentage.

Calcountry
06-07-2006, 04:15 PM
we never would have had this D. Having a good D is part of marty ballThen it is impossible to have Martyball 2.0 this year.

Sorry, Marty wasted a fabulous D by not having enough balls to take some risks. Carl wasted a fabulous D by not having the balls to tell Lamar to spend some coin. Lamar wasted a fabulous D by not insisting that his bitch Carl get the freaking job done and supplying him the cash to do it with.

Now the same is true with the O.

Calcountry
06-07-2006, 04:16 PM
**** it. i like martyball.

run the football and play D.

its not like the DV years of big O took us anywhere.Shit, bring back the Wing T and block them fuggers.

Lzen
06-07-2006, 04:26 PM
Way to lump Marty's average offense in with DV's terrible, record setting terrible, conscience shocking terrible, defense. Almost makes them look equivalent.

Yeah, the record setting defense of 02 was a joke. The rest of the years were in the bottom 3rd of the league, but not record setting terrible. That's why I said below average to terrible.

Below average would be some of Marty's offenses.
Terrible would be DV's defenses pretty much from 02 thru 05.

However, I still vividly remember a playoff game after the 1992 season where Marty Schottenheimer's Chiefs lost 0-17. They didn't manage one freaking score in that game. That was so pathetic.

King_Chief_Fan
06-07-2006, 04:29 PM
Then it is impossible to have Martyball 2.0 this year.

Sorry, Marty wasted a fabulous D by not having enough balls to take some risks. Carl wasted a fabulous D by not having the balls to tell Lamar to spend some coin. Lamar wasted a fabulous D by not insisting that his bitch Carl get the freaking job done and supplying him the cash to do it with.

Now the same is true with the O.

exactly........so, with this offense and Herm's passion for a solid D, it looks like this year could be as close as we may get for awhile. Our O is getting older and I am afraid that Marty 2.0 could be around the corner in a couple of years.

Lzen
06-07-2006, 04:30 PM
I highly disagree. The end results were not the same at all. Marty had a regular season record of 101-58-1 (.634) including seven playoff appearances and three division titles. Vermiel had a .550 winning percentage with us, only two winning seasons, and only one playoff appearance. Yes its true that we never won the Super Bowl with either coach, but I would much rather be in the playoffs 7 out of 10 years and have a .634 winning percentage than 1 out of 5 years with a .550 winning percentage.

BTW, I agree with being in the playoffs 7 of 10 years with .634 winning % is much better than 1 of 5 (although one could argue that the Chiefs, in any other year - especially now since there are 4 divisions instead of just 3 - they would've been a playoff team with a 10-6 record) with .550 winning %. I would just like to know why we can't be dominant in one phase and good in the other. Why does it always have to be one or the other?


AND WHY THE HELL CAN'T THE CHIEFS WIN A FREKIN' PLAYOFF GAME??

Mr. Laz
06-07-2006, 04:44 PM
saw something today about how Edward wants 35 carries per game.


i think we ran it about 30 times per game last year when things were going well.

not much different


the big difference is gonna be HOW we run it ... rather than the amount.

is Herman Edward gonna tell solari to run it regardless of production "because it burns clock" or are they gonna run it for success. :shrug:

KCChiefsFan88
06-07-2006, 04:45 PM
I'm legitimately terrified of Herman Edwards coaching our team. He sounds like a politician rather than a coach during his press conferences. It's not about kissing the media's ass, it's about utilizing the talent of your team to maximize their effectiveness. If he sits on his thumbs whenever we get a 7 or 10 point lead instead of attacking, I'm going to cut someone's head off with a chainsaw.


Better get the chainsaw ready because it is going to happen. Herm is going to put the clamps on this offense's aggressiveness and potential to score, in the name of his Marty-ball mantra.

Also Herm reminds me of Marty, in terms of all the double speak that flows from his mouth at his press conferences. He'll say one thing (i.e. at his initial press conference saying how the offense won't change from its aggressiveness/style), and end up contradicting himself (i.e. making dramatic changes to the offense's philosophy).

This reminds me of Marty's claims during the offseason and the preseason that he would open up the offense (remember his "Let's get chunks of yardage" claim prior to the '97 season???), only to make the same conservative LOSING decisions later in the season.

Carl wanted a coach exactly like Marty, but without the backbone Marty had to stand-up to Peterson's decisions regarding personnel. And that is exactly what he got in Herm. A Martyball-wannabe who is too gutless to challenge Peterson's "supreme authority".

Baby Lee
06-07-2006, 04:56 PM
Marty's offense was only average because of the defense. A good defense mediates the problems of a bad offense because they get great field position and extra possesions due to the turnovers caused by the D. A good offense exacerbates the problems of a bad defense, because it causes the other team to open up more.
So we're better off with a great defense than even a stellar offense. Thanks for the validation.

Calcountry
06-07-2006, 05:05 PM
saw something today about how Edward wants 35 carries per game.


i think we ran it about 30 times per game last year when things were going well.

not much different


the big difference is gonna be HOW we run it ... rather than the amount.

is Herman Edward gonna tell solari to run it regardless of production "because it burns clock" or are they gonna run it for success. :shrug:I saw a section championship game at the high school level, where they did hurry up offense, but ran the ball.

The huddle was close to the line of scrimmage, everyone broke, got set and snap. Play after play they misdirected, trapped, end arround, off tackle, off guard, pass. pound pound pound. I know it wouldn't work in pro, but it was a sight to see. asswhipping. Many times the D wasn't even deployed when they snapped the ball, and they just ran the fug over them.

Bring back the wing T dammit. I don't think the old farts on the oline could handle it.

milkman
06-07-2006, 05:22 PM
Martyball isn't a scheme, it's a state of mind.

The Chargers two years ago were a prolific offense, but when the playoffs rolled around, Marty's conservative "play not to lose" approach reared it's ugly head, as it always does in the playoffs.

Marty doesn't lose in the playoffs because his offense is bad.
He loses because he's afraid of playing to win.

Joe Gibbs SB teams in DC played the same style as Marty did in KC, and won with 3 different QBs, and a couple of different RBs because Joe Gibbs wasn't afraid of playing to win.

Gibbs played to win, Marty played not to lose.

You guys confuse maulball with Martyball.

Playing not to lose is the definition of Martyball.

Psyko Tek
06-07-2006, 06:16 PM
we need agressive o and d

runn it down their throats till they can stop it and then go deep

trouble is no deep threat
Gonzo?

PREIST in the slot

FringeNC
06-07-2006, 06:50 PM
We'll we've heard that the offense won't change, and we've heard that will run the ball 45 times a game...so who knows...

My gut feeling is that Herm will be out of the loop on offense. (I hope.) Herm is a "play not to lose coach", so it would be Martyball if we were starting from scratch.

el borracho
06-07-2006, 07:42 PM
I enjoyed the Marty years. I hope the Chiefs become as successful now as they were in those years. Additionally, if you look at Marty's Chargers they have been a successful offense. I think Marty did (and still does) a hell of a job coaching the players he had. What do you think other coaches would have done with Harvey Williams, Steve Bono and some of the other subpar offensive talents the Chiefs had in those years?

milkman
06-07-2006, 07:55 PM
I enjoyed the Marty years. I hope the Chiefs become as successful now as they were in those years. Additionally, if you look at Marty's Chargers they have been a successful offense. I think Marty did (and still does) a hell of a job coaching the players he had. What do you think other coaches would have done with Harvey Williams, Steve Bono and some of the other subpar offensive talents the Chiefs had in those years?

People misunderstand me when I bash Marty.

I actually think he's a good coach that gets more than should be expected from his teams on a consistent basis.

That is, until the playoffs.

Marty goes into a shell, and kills his team's chances for success.

That is my problem with Marty.

el borracho
06-07-2006, 08:25 PM
People misunderstand me when I bash Marty.

I actually think he's a good coach that gets more than should be expected from his teams on a consistent basis.

That is, until the playoffs.

Marty goes into a shell, and kills his team's chances for success.

That is my problem with Marty.
How does the Steve Bono playoff loss fit into that model? People often bash Marty for putting the ball in Bono's hands instead of just handing off to Marcus.

KCChiefsFan88
06-07-2006, 08:34 PM
Looking at their careers as a whole with all the teams they've coached with...

Vermeil= 2 Super Bowl appearances, 1 Super Bowl Win

Marty= 0 Super Bowl appearances, 0 Super Bowl Wins.

That sums up why I'll take the Vermeil approach over the proven failure that is Marty's approach any day.

milkman
06-07-2006, 08:49 PM
How does the Steve Bono playoff loss fit into that model? People often bash Marty for putting the ball in Bono's hands instead of just handing off to Marcus.

I always felt like Marty was afraid of overusing Marcus too early in that game, and feared that he would be ineffective in the second half to milk the clock if we had a lead.

The strategy change, obviously, was ineffective, thus making the concern for Marcus fresh legs later in the game a non concern.

That was/ is JMO.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-07-2006, 09:08 PM
So we're better off with a great defense than even a stellar offense. Thanks for the validation.

You clearly missed the point there. The fact of the matter is that Marty's offenses were not even remotely average, they were horrible, completely inept. We did no better with marty over 10 years than we did with Vermeil over 5. The only difference between the two is that there were several Chiefs games where you didn't always have to be constantly worried that one play would sink us, a la the Marty years. If the Chiefs got down ten in 96, we all knew the game was pretty much over. If the Chiefs were up ten in '05 we knew it wasn't over either, but we also knew that there was a great possibility that we could be up 30 by the next quarter. The biggest problem with Marty's philosophy is that it allowed substandard opponents to beat us because he refused to take the chances necessary to allow us to separate from the opponents. That's not a winning proposition and it has been proven out over his entire coaching career, whether in Cleveland, San Diego, or KC. Vermeil's approach was obviously flawed and shortsighted, but it is far better suited for this NFL than is Martyball. Marty Schottenheimer and his disciples will never win a Super Bowl (that includes Dungy and Herm, you can't lump Cowher in with them because he has displayed a consistent streak of creativity and risk taking in his coaching career that was wholly absent from the others in true pressure situations), because they are too afraid to take the risks on offense that you need to do so unless you have the 2000 Ravens or 85 Bears defense, and you can't expect yourselves to build that defense.

Marty is like a poker player who only plays pocket Aces or Kings. He's too afraid to ever take a risk on anything, and so he'll only enter pots with monster hands. That allows you to have consistent winnings, but they are meager and inconsequential, because you are winning fractions of your initial buy in since those truly premium hands are so rare. (Consequently he has a great regular season winning % and has always come up short in the playoffs) Unless Marty got pocket Aces (2000 Ravens D) There is no way he could ever do anything in the playoffs because of his coaching philosophy. Now granted, Vermeil could win big, and he could also suffer crushing defeats (the Philly collapse of '05), but the aggression inherent in that system allowed us a chance to win. Vermeil's problem wasn't the same as Marty's. Marty refused to try to step on the throat, Vermeil didn't 'have the horses to back up his offense (which is partly his fault by delegating too much defensive responsibility, but it's not the same problem).


The difference between the two is that Vermeil won a Super Bowl with the 99 Rams. I guaranf*ckingtee that Marty would have lost the Tampa Bay game were he on the sidelines with St. Louis in Vermeil's position.

The fact that people are still willing to give the benefit of the doubt to that piece of shit just boggles my mind.

ChiefaRoo
06-07-2006, 09:37 PM
Shorter, faster practices without pads

More emphasis on the running game

Defensive Headcoach implementing and tight zone\cover 2 type D


But we hear the offense won't really change.

Sounds a lot like a lot of 2 TE sets and off tackle running to me since we have no proven FB.

Are we dumping a lot of the AL Saunders arial show plays for more or a Marty ball control type tough D?


I'll take the part of Martyball that plays Defense and knocks the other guys d**k in the dirt.

Don't worry as long as we don't trade LJ for Donell Bennett Jr. and Trent for Steve DeBerg we'll still score. In fairness to DeBerg he did have one very good year for KC.

KCBOSS1
06-07-2006, 09:52 PM
Why couldn't he just leave the offense alone like he said he was going to in the beginning. Our point side of the board has been great for a few years. Hopefully, he will. He can't improve on it. Leave it alone! Beef up the defense, pick up another good receiver, let Trent have more freedom and offset Solari's inexperience as a OC because Trent is brilliant in this offense. UUUUGGGGHHH! I like you Herm, but LEAVE IT ALONE!

CoMoChief
06-07-2006, 09:56 PM
I don't care. You could call it Cinderella's Ball for all I care, as long as the Chiefs have more points on the board at the end of the game.


True, but our defense still cant stop anyone. At least with AS we had an offense that could keep us in games til the end.

ChiefsCountry
06-07-2006, 10:01 PM
WTF is people talking about Marty's offense as horrible? I never thought it was that bad, granted we didnt have a stud at the positions like now but it was pretty decent. No it wasnt the circus that it is now, but Also I dont buy in the crap that Lamar and Carl didnt try to get a offense. Remember all the money we signed with Grbac, Alexander, Rison, Brett Perriman and drafted Gonzo and Lockett. Also in 93 with Montana, Allen.

I think our offense will be fine, we will still attack the field. Hey if we become more run oriented, thats fine with me keeps our d off the field as well.

Also I think our D has some really good potential - DJ, Kawakia at linebackers plus Hali and Allen at end looks good for the future.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-07-2006, 10:08 PM
WTF is people talking about Marty's offense as horrible? I never thought it was that bad, granted we didnt have a stud at the positions like now but it was pretty decent. No it wasnt the circus that it is now, but Also I dont buy in the crap that Lamar and Carl didnt try to get a offense. Remember all the money we signed with Grbac, Alexander, Rison, Brett Perriman and drafted Gonzo and Lockett. Also in 93 with Montana, Allen.

I think our offense will be fine, we will still attack the field. Hey if we become more run oriented, thats fine with me keeps our d off the field as well.

Also I think our D has some really good potential - DJ, Kawakia at linebackers plus Hali and Allen at end looks good for the future.

16,10,14,0,27,28,13,17,7,10

14.2 Points per game over Marty's playoff career. If you subtract the two wins in 93, it goes down to around 10 ppg. That's pathetic.

Guru
06-07-2006, 11:36 PM
Shorter, faster practices without pads

More emphasis on the running game

Defensive Headcoach implementing and tight zone\cover 2 type D


But we hear the offense won't really change.

Sounds a lot like a lot of 2 TE sets and off tackle running to me since we have no proven FB.

Are we dumping a lot of the AL Saunders arial show plays for more or a Marty ball control type tough D?


OH, to have a balance of each.

greg63
06-08-2006, 01:35 AM
OH, to have a balance of each.

...Time will tell.

CupidStunt
06-08-2006, 12:45 PM
The funny thing is, Martyball can work. You just have to possess the things that make it work - a great defense and a great running game. As of right now, we're only 1 for 2 in those categories.

But if Herm can coach the D up, i'm all for playing a little defense, running the rock and ditching the high-flying got-us-nowhere offense.

htismaqe
06-08-2006, 01:38 PM
ROFL

I wish I had a freaking dime for every time this has been posted.

Most people here don't even know what MartyBall is...

petegz28
06-08-2006, 01:52 PM
ROFL

I wish I had a freaking dime for every time this has been posted.

Most people here don't even know what MartyBall is...


Power-ball control running, play-action pass and stifiling defense.


Care to tell me what you think I am missing?

Oh yeah, field goal kickers that suck!

htismaqe
06-08-2006, 01:53 PM
Lifeless, Losing, Proven Failure Martyball is back. These losers must be smiling over that very thought

http://www.cantstopthebleeding.com/img/marty1120.jpg


http://www.azstarnet.com/ss/2005/01/20/57709-1.jpg


http://images.google.com/url?q=http://www.raiders.com/uploads/photos/perm/main/OJNHCMLNDIED/raye-coach-2005.jpg

Boy, it sure hurts being called a loser by such a ****ing pathetic douchebag.

Chief Faithful
06-08-2006, 01:56 PM
Can it be real Marty ball without Hackett or Raye?

htismaqe
06-08-2006, 01:57 PM
Power-ball control running, play-action pass and stifiling defense.


Care to tell me what you think I am missing?

Oh yeah, field goal kickers that suck!

Power rushing + Playaction + stifling defense = smashmouth or maulball

When the game and/or season is on the line, tossing out every little thing that contributed to you getting there in the 1st place = MartyBall

Donger
06-08-2006, 02:01 PM
You guys probably know this already, but I thought I'd share:

"Schottenheimer has led his teams to the playoffs 12 times, more than any other active NFL coach. He is tied for third (along with Chuck Noll and Bud Grant) in most playoff appearances by an NFL head coach since 1960. Only Don Shula (19) and Tom Landry (18) have led their teams to more playoff appearances."

htismaqe
06-08-2006, 02:03 PM
You guys probably know this already, but I thought I'd share:

"Schottenheimer has led his teams to the playoffs 12 times, more than any other active NFL coach. He is tied for third (along with Chuck Noll and Bud Grant) in most playoff appearances by an NFL head coach since 1960. Only Don Shula (19) and Tom Landry (18) have led their teams to more playoff appearances."

The goal of the NFL is to win the Super Bowl, not just make the playoffs.

Donger
06-08-2006, 02:04 PM
The goal of the NFL is to win the Super Bowl, not just make the playoffs.

Yes, I know. I just wasn't aware of that stat.

Tribal Warfare
06-08-2006, 02:05 PM
lets insert the one of the pharses in the Chiefs Planet
Lexicon we need balance, because both sides should be damn good

htismaqe
06-08-2006, 02:09 PM
Yes, I know. I just wasn't aware of that stat.

Really?

You should have posted the 2nd paragraph of your excerpt from Wikipedia. It's much more telling, IMO.

However, Schottenheimer's success in the regular season combined with his disappointing record in post-season play has led some pundits to label him as a coach who "can't win in the playoffs." The January 8, 2005 loss to the Jets brought his career playoff record to 5-12 (.294). In his 12 post-season appearances, Schottenheimer's teams have failed to win a playoff game eight times and a Schottenheimer coached team has not won a playoff game since the 1993 season.

12 trips, 8 1st-game losses. Unbelievable.

Baby Lee
06-08-2006, 02:10 PM
Power rushing + Playaction + stifling defense = smashmouth or maulball

When the game and/or season is on the line, tossing out every little thing that contributed to you getting there in the 1st place = MartyBall
Oh, and 'ignoring all the positives and over-inflating the sole negative = authority on the subject.'

By that standard, htismodball=abusing the DC subforum by turning it into a romper room repository.

:D

Brock
06-08-2006, 02:12 PM
Oh, and 'ignoring all the positives and over-inflating the sole negative = authority on the subject.'

By that standard, htismodball=abusing the DC subforum by turning it into a romper room repository.

:D

He'll only need to do it about 12 more times.

Donger
06-08-2006, 02:12 PM
Really?

You should have posted the 2nd paragraph of your excerpt from Wikipedia. It's much more telling, IMO.

However, Schottenheimer's success in the regular season combined with his disappointing record in post-season play has led some pundits to label him as a coach who "can't win in the playoffs." The January 8, 2005 loss to the Jets brought his career playoff record to 5-12 (.294). In his 12 post-season appearances, Schottenheimer's teams have failed to win a playoff game eight times and a Schottenheimer coached team has not won a playoff game since the 1993 season.

12 trips, 8 1st-game losses. Unbelievable.

Heh. Yes, I was just reading that.

noa
06-08-2006, 02:14 PM
The goal of the NFL is to win the Super Bowl, not just make the playoffs.



No one will argue with that, but making the playoffs consistently shouldn't be overlooked. Marty sucks in the playoffs, but I'd rather have that than a coach who rarely made the playoffs (like DV's one appearance in five years with us).

htismaqe
06-08-2006, 02:17 PM
Only Chuck Knox (22 years) coached longer than Marty (19 years) without a single Super Bowl appearance.

Only Chuck Knox (193 wins) won more games without a single Super Bowl. And Knox's winning percentage was only .550 compared to Marty's .584.

http://www.homestead.com/actionheroes/nflcoaches.html

http://www.homestead.com/actionheroes/nflcoaches.html

htismaqe
06-08-2006, 02:19 PM
Oh, and 'ignoring all the positives and over-inflating the sole negative = authority on the subject.'

By that standard, htismodball=abusing the DC subforum by turning it into a romper room repository.

:D

Once again, you simply skip over reality and go right to attacking me.

I have ZERO problem with smashmouth football. I've NEVER ignored the positives.

The simple fact is that MARTY is the problem, not the philosophy.

htismaqe
06-08-2006, 02:21 PM
No one will argue with that, but making the playoffs consistently shouldn't be overlooked. Marty sucks in the playoffs, but I'd rather have that than a coach who rarely made the playoffs (like DV's one appearance in five years with us).

Look at the list I just posted.

I'd rather go to the playoffs with ANY coach other than Marty.

Going to the playoffs with Marty is basically not going to the playoffs at all.

noa
06-08-2006, 02:25 PM
Look at the list I just posted.

I'd rather go to the playoffs with ANY coach other than Marty.

Going to the playoffs with Marty is basically not going to the playoffs at all.

I'm not going to argue with that. I just believe that our organization was better under Marty than it was under DV. That's why I wouldn't mind a return to Martyball, whatever that means...

MahiMike
06-08-2006, 02:25 PM
Yes, my son. You have reason to worry...

The Bubble has Burst (as posted back in January)

And I'm not talking about the real estate market.

I'm talking about the offensive fire power in Kansas City. With one phone call, the most aggressive owner in the league just hired the most aggressive offensive coordinator in the league.

Daniel Snyder now has 2 perfect bookends on his sidelines. The best of the best on both sides of the ball. Put your bets in now for the next 3 years on the Redskins to win it all. While you're at it, place some money down on the Chiefs to score less than 100 points next year.

King Carl has acted like a crazed Steve Austin. He just cut off his bionic arm to save his handicapped torso. He just traded in his Ferrari for a yugo.

So I don't know where yugo, but Igo be a Redskins fan now. Hey they're basically the same looking team on the East coast, right?

Thank goodness I can still do my tomahawk chop!

ChiefaRoo
06-08-2006, 02:26 PM
ROFL

I wish I had a freaking dime for every time this has been posted.

Most people here don't even know what MartyBall is...


It's all about the GLEAM MEN!!

Donger
06-08-2006, 02:26 PM
I didn't know these, either:

# Edwards vows not to watch the Super Bowl until he himself participates in one as a coach.

# Edwards does not allow players to have cellphones in the locker rooms. He believes even the lockerroom is a 'workplace.' [3]

Brock
06-08-2006, 02:30 PM
I'm not going to argue with that. I just believe that our organization was better under Marty than it was under DV. That's why I wouldn't mind a return to Martyball, whatever that means...

You're happy with a better grade of loser.

noa
06-08-2006, 02:34 PM
You're happy with a better grade of loser.


Of course...ultimatey, I am disappointed with both Marty and DV, but I think most fans across the country would rather make the playoffs 7 out of 10 years (as Marty did) and lose right away than just make the playoffs 1 out of 5 years (as DV did).

Brock
06-08-2006, 02:35 PM
Of course...ultimatey, I am disappointed with both Marty and DV, but I think most fans across the country would rather make the playoffs 7 out of 10 years (as Marty did) and lose right away than just make the playoffs 1 out of 5 years (as DV did).

It's the choice between eating dog crap or cat crap. Isn't there another option?

KCTitus
06-08-2006, 02:36 PM
Really?

You should have posted the 2nd paragraph of your excerpt from Wikipedia. It's much more telling, IMO.

The January 8, 2005 loss to the Jets brought [Marty's] career playoff record to 5-12 (.294). In his 12 post-season appearances, Schottenheimer's teams have failed to win a playoff game eight times and a Schottenheimer coached team has not won a playoff game since the 1993 season.

12 trips, 8 1st-game losses. Unbelievable.

He can thank Joe Montana for 40% of his playoff wins. 3 of his 5 wins came in KC...

htismaqe
06-08-2006, 02:39 PM
I'm not going to argue with that. I just believe that our organization was better under Marty than it was under DV. That's why I wouldn't mind a return to Martyball, whatever that means...

> bad ≠ good

Donger
06-08-2006, 02:40 PM
Of course...ultimatey, I am disappointed with both Marty and DV, but I think most fans across the country would rather make the playoffs 7 out of 10 years (as Marty did) and lose right away than just make the playoffs 1 out of 5 years (as DV did).

Not me. For me, 'making the playoffs' is nice and all, just because it's a requisite step towards getting to the Super Bowl. I don't see the benefit of just getting in knowing that there's a 70% chance your team is not going to make it past the first game.

I remember watching the San Diego playoff game in 2004 (right?). I remember yelling at my wife, "Watch. Marty's going to f*ck this up." Sure enough, three pathetic running plays and then puts it all on his kicker. That brought back bad memories, but at least it wasn't the Chiefs getting f*cked by him.

Honestly, I'd rather the Chiefs not make the playoffs if that kind of nonsense is going to take place.

htismaqe
06-08-2006, 02:41 PM
Hey, KCChiefsfan88, thanks for the negative rep.

And thanks for the kind words about me wanting to bring back MartyBall.

Of course, if you were paying attention you'd realize that I was one of the people here that HATES Marty and took constant criticism for defending Vermeil.

Thanks for playing anyway, too bad you're still a douchebag.

keg in kc
06-08-2006, 02:47 PM
And thanks for the kind words about me wanting to bring back MartyBall.:LOL:

Parker, champion of Martyocrity. ROFL

Baby Lee
06-08-2006, 02:47 PM
He can thank Joe Montana for 40% of his playoff wins. 3 of his 5 wins came in KC...
Sooo, he can win playoff games with the right personnel?
Given a choice between a DV situation where the team is in mutiny, and new players and coordinators are imposed on you by the FO, and the personnel department gets you the perfect RB for a SB run next to nothing, and a Schotty situation where the coach is on board with going out and getting the best QB and RB to get some playoff wins, geez it's a tough call.

keg in kc
06-08-2006, 02:51 PM
Honestly, I'd rather the Chiefs not make the playoffs if that kind of nonsense is going to take place.That's pretty much the way I feel.

For fairness' sake, I will say that don't know that I'd feel better had Vermeil's teams made it more often, either. Because while I'd rather watch a game like the 2003 indy loss, in the end, it's still a loss.

I do, however, think last year's team would have been capable of a playoff win had they snuck in. I can't remember the last time I thought a martyocre team would do anything but beat itself. Joe Montana miracles aside, although I was an NFC fan way back then and didn't pay much attention to KC.

Chief Faithful
06-08-2006, 02:52 PM
Once again, you simply skip over reality and go right to attacking me.

I have ZERO problem with smashmouth football. I've NEVER ignored the positives.

The simple fact is that MARTY is the problem, not the philosophy.

I think that is the right point to make. The philosophy is proven with a case in point the current world champion Steelers.

Remember Marty wanted Hacket and Raye as the OC. On the other end he hired some great defensive coaches like Cowher, Dungy, and Edwards. Marty didn't win because he made bad decisions with offense concerning coaching, play calling, and talent. Martyball did not fail because it was based on a conservative philosophy.

If Edwards can retain some of DV's offensive team while building a sound defense smashmouth football could live again with much better results.

htismaqe
06-08-2006, 02:58 PM
I think that is the right point to make. The philosophy is proven with a case in point the current world champion Steelers.

Remember Marty wanted Hacket and Raye as the OC. On the other end he hired some great defensive coaches like Cowher, Dungy, and Edwards. Marty didn't win because he made bad decisions with offense concerning coaching, play calling, and talent. Martyball did not fail because it was based on a conservative philosophy.

If Edwards can retain some of DV's offensive team while building a sound defense smashmouth football could live again with much better results.

Lots of smashmouth teams have won it all. Hell Tampa even won it using RBbC.

htismaqe
06-08-2006, 02:58 PM
Sooo, he can win playoff games with the right personnel?
Given a choice between a DV situation where the team is in mutiny, and new players and coordinators are imposed on you by the FO, and the personnel department gets you the perfect RB for a SB run next to nothing, and a Schotty situation where the coach is on board with going out and getting the best QB and RB to get some playoff wins, geez it's a tough call.

Right personnel?

Joe Montana and Marcus Allen are both HoFer's and Montana is one of the greatest ever.

Yeah, those guys just grow on trees. If only Carl hadn't ****ed around and got more of those guys for poor Marty.

Chief Faithful
06-08-2006, 03:01 PM
Lots of smashmouth teams have won it all. Hell Tampa even won it using RBbC.

I'm excited about the move back to smashmouth football and feel they have the right offensive talent to pull it off.

Just keep Marty, Hacket and Raye far away from KC.

keg in kc
06-08-2006, 03:02 PM
Marty made bad decisions defensively as well, in terms of how he approached late games.

As I recall.

And I would hesitate to call every offense that runs the ball "smashmouth". There's a difference between teams that run it up the gut 30 times a game (go go Jimmy Raye) and teams like the 90's cowboy championship squads (or our own recent teams) that run the ball a ton but rather than simply hammer the ball, generate misdirection, both running and passing. Keeping the defense on their heels demoralizes defenses every bit as much as knocking them on their asses, and it usually puts more points on the scoreboard. If you can also knock them on their asses, so much better. That's what we've been doing for four years, you know: beating them up physically and mentally.

Success comes with balance. Whether you're talking about offensive or defensive philosophy, or general team build-up.

That's my belief, at least.

htismaqe
06-08-2006, 03:04 PM
Marty made bad decisions defensively as well, in terms of how he approached late games.

Yep.

Calcountry
06-08-2006, 03:06 PM
Marty is like a poker player who only plays pocket Aces or Kings. He's too afraid to ever take a risk on anything, and so he'll only enter pots with monster hands. That allows you to have consistent winnings, but they are meager and inconsequential, because you are winning fractions of your initial buy in since those truly premium hands are so rare. (Consequently he has a great regular season winning % and has always come up short in the playoffs) Unless Marty got pocket Aces (2000 Ravens D) There is no way he could ever do anything in the playoffs because of his coaching philosophy. Now granted, Vermeil could win big, and he could also suffer crushing defeats (the Philly collapse of '05), but the aggression inherent in that system allowed us a chance to win. Vermeil's problem wasn't the same as Marty's. Marty refused to try to step on the throat, Vermeil didn't 'have the horses to back up his offense (which is partly his fault by delegating too much defensive responsibility, but it's not the same problem).

.Of course, if I were playing this kind of "Marty" in a hand of poker, as soon as he did anything besides fold on the draw, I would get out of the hand.

KCTitus
06-08-2006, 03:08 PM
Sooo, he can win playoff games with the right personnel?
Given a choice between a DV situation where the team is in mutiny, and new players and coordinators are imposed on you by the FO, and the personnel department gets you the perfect RB for a SB run next to nothing, and a Schotty situation where the coach is on board with going out and getting the best QB and RB to get some playoff wins, geez it's a tough call.

We've been round on this one numerous times. Joe won despite Marty, and Joe was a little bit better than your average personnel even in his declining years.

I have no idea where you got the 'DV' situation where the team was in mutiny and players were forced on anyone. That team didnt melt down until Marty got a say in personnel--talk about a team in mutiny.

Forgive me if Im not inclined to believe the same person who said that the offenses job on the field was 'to not turn the ball over' was a big proponent or even 'on board' when it came to getting Montana.

KCTitus
06-08-2006, 03:15 PM
Success comes with balance. Whether you're talking about offensive or defensive philosophy, or general team build-up.

That's my belief, at least.

I agree...

The bottom line on comparing DV to Marty...the only difference, in my mind, between the DV era and the Marty era was that Marty was here 4 years too long. He should have been shit canned after 1994's dismal flop.

Baby Lee
06-08-2006, 03:24 PM
I have no idea where you got the 'DV' situation where the team was in mutiny and players were forced on anyone. That team didnt melt down until Marty got a say in personnel--talk about a team in mutiny.
DV wasn't saying, let's get rid of Tony Banks and get Trent, or Kurt.
DV wasn't saying, let's get rid of Amp Lee and get Marshall Faulk.
DV named Mike White, Bud Carson, Jim Hanifan, Frank Gansz and Dick Coury as his assistants. The FO insisted on John Bunting and Mike Martz at the end of the next year.
Isaac Bruce led a walkout the week after the end of the 98 season, when DV called them in to review tape from their 4-12 season. The made it clear that changes needed to be made in the practice and preparation phase starting immediately.

KCTitus
06-08-2006, 03:31 PM
DV wasn't saying, let's get rid of Tony Banks and get Trent, or Kurt.
DV wasn't saying, let's get rid of Amp Lee and get Marshall Faulk.
DV named Mike White, Bud Carson, Jim Hanifan, Frank Gansz and Dick Coury as his assistants. The FO insisted on John Bunting and Mike Martz at the end of the next year.
Isaac Bruce led a walkout the week after the end of the 98 season, when DV called them in to review tape from their 4-12 season. The made it clear that changes needed to be made in the practice and preparation phase starting immediately.

I dont remember any of those players or coaches on the Chiefs...

Baby Lee
06-08-2006, 03:32 PM
Once again, you simply skip over reality and go right to attacking me.

I have ZERO problem with smashmouth football. I've NEVER ignored the positives.

The simple fact is that MARTY is the problem, not the philosophy.
First off, are smileys just totally ignored nowadays?

And my point is we're talking past each other.

When I pine for the teams of the 90s, I'm pining for dominating defense, reliable running, play-action, and an overwhelming 1) home field advantage, and 2) turnover advantage.

You see us wanting those things, and since Marty was coach over those teams, you think we WANT some dude who makes the wrong call at the wrong time [running when the pass is available, airing it out in the bitter cold].

I don't want another Bam Morris. I'd take another Marcus Allen, Word or Okoye. But it doesn't matter because we have Larry and Priest.

I don't want another Bono. I'd take another Montana or DeBerg. But it doesn't matter because we have Trent.

I DO want another DT, Smith, Sale, Joe Phillips, Carter, Ross,

Baby Lee
06-08-2006, 03:35 PM
I dont remember any of those players or coaches on the Chiefs...
Wee-todd-edd ovah heyah.

OK then, Greg Robinson, Guinta, Bartee, McLeon, Hicks.

keg in kc
06-08-2006, 03:36 PM
The bottom line on comparing DV to Marty...the only difference, in my mind, between the DV era and the Marty era was that Marty was here 4 years too long. He should have been shit canned after 1994's dismal flop.They both failed. End of story.

What I still wonder is how Peterson still has a job. Or at least how he still has half his titles. I still see his reupping after '04 as one of the most inexplicable moves I can remember. To go 11 years without a playoff victory and then get a contract extension after a 7-9 season....

Head scratching.

KCTitus
06-08-2006, 03:39 PM
Wee-todd-edd ovah heyah.

OK then, Greg Robinson, Guinta, Bartee, McLeon, Hicks.

It's 'we todd did'...and if you want to compare contrast Marty and DV, let's at least try to compare/contrast them using the same organization. I dont really give one good wit about STL. You cannot say that DV didnt get what he wanted in almost all cases in KC. I think the only player he publically didnt want was LJ.

Again, I didnt know the team to be in mutiny under DV--that would have been more self evident to me. Kind of like what happened in 1998 or at the end of the 2000 season when the team gives up in the last game of the year losing to a 2-14 team.

KCTitus
06-08-2006, 03:41 PM
They both failed. End of story.

What I still wonder is how Peterson still has a job. Or at least how he still has half his titles. I still see his reupping after '04 as one of the most inexplicable moves I can remember. To go 11 years without a playoff victory and then get a contract extension after a 7-9 season....

Head scratching.

Yeah...I can understand that. IMO, the only reason Steadman lost the job was due to the stadium being less than half full all the time.

Baby Lee
06-08-2006, 03:48 PM
if you want to compare contrast Marty and DV, let's at least try to compare/contrast them using the same organization.
OK then, DV is 0-1 in the playoffs with 0 SBs.
Marty's at least won a playoff game. ;)

Can't have it both ways, touting the SB appearances with other teams, then ignoring the bad stuff that happened with him elsewhere.

htismaqe
06-08-2006, 04:28 PM
First off, are smileys just totally ignored nowadays?

And my point is we're talking past each other.

When I pine for the teams of the 90s, I'm pining for dominating defense, reliable running, play-action, and an overwhelming 1) home field advantage, and 2) turnover advantage.

You see us wanting those things, and since Marty was coach over those teams, you think we WANT some dude who makes the wrong call at the wrong time (running when the pass is available, airing it out in the bitter cold).

I don't want another Bam Morris. I'd take another Marcus Allen, Word or Okoye. But it doesn't matter because we have Larry and Priest.

I don't want another Bono. I'd take another Montana or DeBerg. But it doesn't matter because we have Trent.

I DO want another DT, Smith, Sale, Joe Phillips, Carter, Ross,

Actually, no I don't.

I love smashmouth football. In fact, last year's team was the best one I've seen here in a LONG TIME. If the defense improves this year as much as it did last year (20-30%) we'll be looking at a maulball team that Marty could only WISH he'd ever had...

;)

Chiefnj
06-08-2006, 04:33 PM
In fact, last year's team was the best one I've seen here in a LONG TIME. If the defense improves this year as much as it did last year (20-30%) we'll be looking at a maulball team that Marty could only WISH he'd ever had...

;)

You wish Vermeil had hung around 1 more year?

htismaqe
06-08-2006, 04:37 PM
You wish Vermeil had hung around 1 more year?

Um, no. Where'd you get that?

Chiefnj
06-08-2006, 04:41 PM
Um, no. Where'd you get that?

I thought it was a logical assumption.

You like the way the offense was playing - which was result of DV and AS and Solari. You also opine that the D improved 20-30%. Another year in the same defensive system with a couple of new players in the same system is reason to believe another 20-30% improvement is possible.
You would arguably be left with a juggernaut offense with an emphasis running the ball and a D that has improved 40-60% over two years that isn't a liabilty anymore.

htismaqe
06-08-2006, 05:01 PM
I thought it was a logical assumption.

You like the way the offense was playing - which was result of DV and AS and Solari. You also opine that the D improved 20-30%. Another year in the same defensive system with a couple of new players in the same system is reason to believe another 20-30% improvement is possible.
You would arguably be left with a juggernaut offense with an emphasis running the ball and a D that has improved 40-60% over two years that isn't a liabilty anymore.

I do like the way LJ was playing. And I do like the playcalling of AS during the last half of the season, but I think the 2nd half of last season was an exception with AS rather than the rule.

Our defense improved 20%, but I'm of the opinion that it's about how far Gunther was going to get us by himself.

If DV were retained, I see us being pretty much like we were last year, which isn't good enough.

IMO, we did almost PRECISELY what we needed to do this offseason - elevate Solari to OC and bring in a defensive HC to kick Gunther in the pants. The only way it could have been better is if Herman had brought in another DC and jettisoned Gunther.

Solari is going to continue Saunder's offense but with his background, he'll hopefully use the ground game a little better like what AS did the 2nd half of last year. And Edwards is going to get that little bit extra out of the defense, allowing them to improve again.

KCChiefsFan88
06-08-2006, 07:01 PM
Actually, no I don't.

I love smashmouth football. In fact, last year's team was the best one I've seen here in a LONG TIME. If the defense improves this year as much as it did last year (20-30%) we'll be looking at a maulball team that Marty could only WISH he'd ever had...

;)


Considering the defense showed virtually NO improvement in critical situations last year (most due to Gunther being outcoached), if they show the same type of "improvement" as they did last season that will equate to no improvement.