Gretz: Return of Marty...
 

Is it just me, or does it sound like Gretz is taking indirect shots at DV when he praises Marty?


GRETZ: Return of Marty
Nov 26, 2004, 5:17:02 AM by Bob Gretz

“Marty Ball is dead,” said the man himself, “Done.”

When I read that quote this week in a San Diego newspaper column about the Chargers it made me laugh. Marty Schottenheimer said it himself about two weeks ago, after San Diego had torched New Orleans for its sixth victory of the season. They added No. 7 this past Sunday, beating Oakland on a day when they did not play their best football.

That victory alone is evidence enough for me that Marty Ball is far from deceased. It’s alive, kicking and has the Chargers tied atop the AFC West rankings with Denver, each team sporting 7-3 records and a head-to-head showdown coming up a week from this Sunday in San Diego.

Over the years, Marty Ball has come to be defined and identified for one thing: an offense built on the running game. Its public face was always Marty himself, a man steadfast in purpose, which is called stubborn by some people.

That description of Marty Ball is wrong and always has been. Marty Ball is many things. It’s about winning, and doing everything within the rules to make that happen. It’s about turnovers, forcing them on defense, not giving the ball away on offense. It’s about stopping the run and yes, being able to run the ball.

But the No. 1 credo of Marty Ball is not three yards and a cloud of dust. It’s about identifying the problems and coming up with solutions. During the hundreds of interviews and conversations I sat through with him during his 10 years at the helm of the Chiefs, Marty said many things that I will remember. Two stand out:

1.) “It’s no longer what have you done for me lately in our society. It’s what are you going to do for me next.”

2.) “My No. 1 job as a coach is to be a problem solver.”

Those that believe him to be nothing more than a stubborn German from western Pennsylvania did not pay attention to what was really going on. If he was so stubborn, why did he have three different defensive coordinators in the first six years he was the Chiefs head coach? Would a stubborn guy change from a 3-4 to a 4-3 defensive scheme in the middle of the season? Marty did that in 1992, after the team signed DT Joe Phillips in late September and the former member of the Chargers showed he was going to be a contributor. The next year, the Chiefs played what amounted to a hybrid defense, with Derrick Thomas playing a position created for him: rush backer. Sometimes it was the 3-4, other times it was the 4-3, with Thomas putting his hand on the ground as a defensive end.

Would a stubborn guy who believes only in the running game on offense fire his offensive coordinator after the 1992 season and bring in an entirely new offensive scheme, one that was designed to move the ball with short passes? Schottenheimer did that when he fired Joe Pendry and brought in the west coast offense and Paul Hackett. He wanted more long plays, chunks as he called them. He knew then his team wasn’t scoring enough points to be able to seriously challenge for post-season success. His plan was to change that.

After a disappointing 1996 season, Schottenheimer pulled the plug on some veteran players in his defense because the unit had regressed that season. Out went guys like Mark Collins and Brian Washington and into the starting lineup came second-year guys Jerome Woods, Reggie Tongue, Donnie Edwards and John Browning. It’s pretty much the same thing he did this past season with the Chargers offensive line. He allowed a bunch of veteran players to walk in free agency because he already knew they weren’t good enough. Instead, he went with a bunch of no-names, late draft choices, guys who weren’t even drafted out of college. He mixed in a couple of veterans from other teams and suddenly, the San Diego offense is effective moving the ball whether through the air or on the ground.

Marty Schottenheimer has always been willing to adapt to his talent, or the current state of the game. He did that in Cleveland, Kansas City, Washington and now San Diego.

The man has really only been stubborn about one thing: winning. That’s the No. 1 attribute of Marty Ball. Always has been, always will be.

And, that is not dead.

Please......The fans and the media were all ready to Bury Marty after last year and just a few short months ago. Hes basically been saved by Brees pulling his head out of his butt. Marty is a good coach, but hes never going to win the big one.

I think Marty has changed a lot of the last year. The Chargers are nothing like the Chiefs of old, at least not on offense. To me the changes he has made this year are the ones everyone was screaming for while he was here. I would not be surprised to see the new attitude take him all the way in the next few years.

It helps when you have playmakers on offense and defense, they seem to be meshing well on both sides.

chargers will be victorious on Sunday and our draft position will be evn better!!!!

I haven't watched the Chargers much this year, but it's likely that they have a glaring weakness that will be exposed in the playoffs, just as happened to the Chiefs under Marty. Frankly, I hope he makes it to the SB, just to poke a sharp stick in Peterson's eye.

He may not make the SB but he'll kick our soft ass.

I personally have nothing against Marty Schottenheimer at all. If it hadn't been for a phantom holding call in Miami, a kicker who should have been lynched after the Colts game, and the ineffable officiating against the Pam-coated Broncos, Marty might have led the Chiefs to 3 different Super Bowls.

Some of the whiny little fan-bitches on this BB were still sucking mommy's tits when some of the rest of us were living through the 70's and 80's as Chiefs fans... It gives one a little better perspective on what Marty meant to this franchise.

Marty was the greatest coach the Chiefs ever had. He's done quite a bit more with Peterson-drafted talent than Vermeil has done. Marty had one losing season in his tenure here while Vermeil has had one winning one. I'm not sure what the deal was with Marty and Greg Hill, but Hill was the closest RB we had to Priest.

I believe having a Trent Green with the Chiefs of the 90's (at least 95-99) would have given us a chance to reach the Super Bowl more than an RB like Priest though.

Over Hank Stram?

I don't see why not. There were a lot fewer teams in the league(s) then and the AFL was probably weaker overall than the NFL. There haven't been too many runs like the Chiefs had in the 90's. Yes, a super bowl is a super bowl but when did Marty have the talent to match up against the Cowboys/49ers/Packers? There was the occasional upset, yes, and the league was different just 10 years ago but when the Chiefs matched someone of lesser or equal talent, they almost always won. I would attribute that to coaching.

You know, I don't think it's an undebatable question.

As much as I love the memories of the Stram years, there is one thing that has always stuck out to me. Take a look at the rosters of the Chiefs teams in the late 60's...It looks like the AFL All-Star team...Sometimes I do wonder if we shouldn't be asking how Stram didn't win the AFL Championship every year for 4 or 5 straight years...

After saying all that, I would still pick Stram as the best Chief's coach ever.

Yeah, I didn't mean to be condensending with that question, I can honestly understand someone taking those viewpoints that Marty had less to work with, more teams in the league, etc.... I was just making conversation. Even though I'm not nearly old enough to have seen anything when Stram was around I'd have a hard time personally picking somebody other than him as greatest coach in Chiefs history, but everybody's different....

That is easy look at the Raiders roster from those years equally as powerful.

Someone did a poll in KC a couple of years ago. Marty won. I read it here on this board.