Greg Roman, is he really good?

Originally posted by SDDAVE:

Originally posted by TheRatMan13:
Agreed. I am of the belief that if a player plays well in the right situation, that he can play well again if put back in the right position.

I've seen Kap play incredible football. I have no doubt that he can again. People thought Kurt Warner was done after his stint with the Rams. Arizona put him back in the right situation and he lit defenses up.

This is why I always try to look at the big picture. Yes, Kap has been bad but let's not completely ignore that in the three losses he has had very little time to make reads let alone throw cleanly.

Cam Newton was standing in the pocket untouched several times yesterday and he still struggled. If Kap had the time Cam did I think he would have had a huge game.

People like to place blame on the QB and I was here defending Alex Smith for the same reasons. I don't find it surprising that now there have been two QBs that have struggled to consistently pass well in this offense.

The common denominator is the OL and the scheme.

You hit the nail on the head. I have said for the past couple of years we have one of the worst pass blocking lines in the NFL. They never fail to let me down. As far as the scheme, I have high seen schools with more advanced passing designs. Where are the hot reads, slant passes, dump-off to the running backs, the outlet pass to receivers, flooding zones with receivers, flare passes. Sending out two wide receivers with 4 back coverage is not a good scheme. I scream at the incompetency of the past 49'er WR coaches and front office in developing any talent at the WR position. I thought the late, great Jerry Sullivan was a douchebag until I have seen Johnny Morton's body of work under JH. Pitiful. Then you see the Saints receiving corp and Brees making everyone look like a superstar. There are no accidents. The Saints have Sean Payton running the offense and we have Roman, no contest. When is the last time the NIner's came close to 30 first downs in a game and the Saints rack up 45 against the Cowboys. Any similarity between the Niner offense and the NO offense is purely accidental.

Exactly. The o-line exceeds at run blocking but pass blocking remains a huge, glaring weakness that has yet to show much improvement.

Our passing schemes are by far the most mediocre and poorly designed in the entire league by a landslide. So amateur it looks like a joke compared to the rest of the offenses in the league and probably even a few college offenses as well. If this is the best our professional coaches can come up with, boy, Baalke better have a list ready because we'll only continue a downward spiral regardless of who we have on offense if the coaches are too stubborn to adjust and keep up with the times.

Morton needs to gtfoh. I don't trust him developing receivers. He's failed to do so and I question his ability to do such. He hasn't gotten anything out of our young receivers in the almost 3 years he's been here while other teams get production from their scrub receivers all the time. This guy is trash!

Sean Payton is an offensive strategy genius. Roman is a gimmicky hack that gets exposed as such each time we face a decent defense that adjusts to his play calling. He fails miserably when challenged and chokes in clutch moments.

If this offense doesn't drastically change and quick, heads better roll.

Originally posted by Jakemall:
I wonder if he was doing the same thing in 2011 and 12 with Alex killing the play and calling runs?

what he was doing in 12 was calling more quick routes so our wr's could catch and get yac.

for some reason same personnel he has decided to abandon this concept.

the sad part is, this is what a dynamic passing attack is in the nfl.

broncos, patriots, saints, packers... they don't run these complex schemes on offense. they just have multiple options and they all run a same variation of the same routes

out route, crossing route, curl, and every now and then someone runs deep...

we have the personnel to do that right now however the guy just isn't good. he just isn't even when we win he still doesn't do a good job with the passing game.

the reason he's extremely bad is because when the passing game isn't working and the running game is he doesn't have sense enough to stick with what's actually working in order to win the game. that is unacceptable.

even if kap was having a horrible game gore wasn't that's 2 for sure game we should have won and could have if he just kept running the ball. but in his infinite wisdom he decided it wasn't good for the team, in a 1 point game so there is literally no excuse for what he's done

i dont hate him as much as some others do, but i did get to thinking back to january where i felt if we didnt make the super bowl that he was going to be the jags new head coach, i believe he has a good relationship with their new gm. but we made the big dance and they didnt want to wait.

Originally posted by real9erfan:

Originally posted by NCommand:
The botton line is, if Jim doesn't do a John (have the balls to fire his OC during a critical stage of the season), we may not even make the playoffs. And I'm not joking.

As to WHO Baalke should hire, I can assure you, he's got his list and he's checking it twice. When a GM puts THAT much talent on a team and during a time that should be OUR time, I don't think he is going to mess around anymore here...the pattern is vitally clear.

There's a difference between Jim and John in that John is not really involved in the offensive game planning or the general offensive philosophy of the team. John is more of a team manager as a head coach and leaves the playcalling and game planning completely to his coordinators. So if the offense was performing poorly, as the team manager, he felt he had to replace his OC. On the other hand, Jim is the one who sets the 49ers offensive philosophy and is involved in both game planning and play calls during the game. All offensive plays called have to go through Jim. Roman is essentially running Jim Harbaugh's offense.

Excellent point. Jim is married to this offensive philosophy himself. Yikes

Originally posted by Jakemall:

I wonder if he was doing the same thing in 2011 and 12 with Alex killing the play and calling runs?

Good question! I was wondering the same thing. We'll obviously never know but sure makes you wonder. Either way I want to see a true commitment to the run game against the Saints this weekend. If we get behind early then I don't really care but if the game is close and this staff abandons the running game again, I'm going to be furious.

Originally posted by NinerG94:

Originally posted by Jakemall:
I wonder if he was doing the same thing in 2011 and 12 with Alex killing the play and calling runs?

Good question! I was wondering the same thing. We'll obviously never know but sure makes you wonder. Either way I want to see a true commitment to the run game against the Saints this weekend. If we get behind early then I don't really care but if the game is close and this staff abandons the running game again, I'm going to be furious.

It seems like Alex was screaming kill kill kill every other play...but that could be just my perception of it.

Q: With the offenses use of two tight ends so often and the injuries that you had Sunday, are you looking to incorporate more three wide receiver packages to kind of expand the overall multiplicity of your personnel going forward?

Greg Roman: "We're always looking to do that. I think when we had two tight ends go down the other day, based on that game plan, that was not ideal. But, you've got to deal with it. The things that we did in the game we practiced. I think we're always, as we keep getting receivers back, we'll probably be a little more of a two, three wide receiver unit. But bottom line is irregardless of circumstance, you've got to find a way to execute and get it done. And these are things we plan for, but that particular game it was a very high percentage of tight end oriented things. So, hope that answers your question."

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/49ers/archives/2013/11/greg-roman-on-offensive-woes-it-definitely-starts-with-me.html#storylink=cpy

hmm..

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by real9erfan:

Originally posted by NCommand:

The botton line is, if Jim doesn't do a John (have the balls to fire his OC during a critical stage of the season), we may not even make the playoffs. And I'm not joking.

As to WHO Baalke should hire, I can assure you, he's got his list and he's checking it twice. When a GM puts THAT much talent on a team and during a time that should be OUR time, I don't think he is going to mess around anymore here...the pattern is vitally clear.

There's a difference between Jim and John in that John is not really involved in the offensive game planning or the general offensive philosophy of the team. John is more of a team manager as a head coach and leaves the playcalling and game planning completely to his coordinators. So if the offense was performing poorly, as the team manager, he felt he had to replace his OC. On the other hand, Jim is the one who sets the 49ers offensive philosophy and is involved in both game planning and play calls during the game. All offensive plays called have to go through Jim. Roman is essentially running Jim Harbaugh's offense.

Excellent point. Jim is married to this offensive philosophy himself. Yikes

That truly is the scary part, that all of his coaches are just in fact following the head coaches orders/vision....smfh

Originally posted by verb1der:

Q: With the offenses use of two tight ends so often and the injuries that you had Sunday, are you looking to incorporate more three wide receiver packages to kind of expand the overall multiplicity of your personnel going forward?

Greg Roman: "We're always looking to do that. I think when we had two tight ends go down the other day, based on that game plan, that was not ideal. But, you've got to deal with it. The things that we did in the game we practiced. I think we're always, as we keep getting receivers back, we'll probably be a little more of a two, three wide receiver unit. But bottom line is irregardless of circumstance, you've got to find a way to execute and get it done. And these are things we plan for, but that particular game it was a very high percentage of tight end oriented things. So, hope that answers your question."

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/49ers/archives/2013/11/greg-roman-on-offensive-woes-it-definitely-starts-with-me.html#storylink=cpy

hmm..

So once again, the game plan was a ton of 2 TE sets for running agsinst their front 7 and 100% passing to VD, as expected. Then VD went down as well as Celek (who we know is only in there to block). So you're telling me, Snyder (used to this role anyhow) couldn't "replace" Celek in the blocking game and with VD we couldn't pass or run (hello, McDonald?).

So what did we do instead? We STOPPED running in the second half (where we had success and the personnel to do it - Snyder and McDonald) and exclusively threw the ball when nobody outside of Boldin was originally in that game plan.

Dude, this guy makes ZERO sense to me.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by verb1der:

Q: With the offenses use of two tight ends so often and the injuries that you had Sunday, are you looking to incorporate more three wide receiver packages to kind of expand the overall multiplicity of your personnel going forward?

Greg Roman: "We're always looking to do that. I think when we had two tight ends go down the other day, based on that game plan, that was not ideal. But, you've got to deal with it. The things that we did in the game we practiced. I think we're always, as we keep getting receivers back, we'll probably be a little more of a two, three wide receiver unit. But bottom line is irregardless of circumstance, you've got to find a way to execute and get it done. And these are things we plan for, but that particular game it was a very high percentage of tight end oriented things. So, hope that answers your question."

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/49ers/archives/2013/11/greg-roman-on-offensive-woes-it-definitely-starts-with-me.html#storylink=cpy

hmm..

So once again, the game plan was a ton of 2 TE sets for running agsinst their front 7 and 100% passing to VD, as expected. Then VD went down as well as Celek (who we know is only in there to block). So you're telling me, Snyder (used to this role anyhow) couldn't "replace" Celek in the blocking game and with VD we couldn't pass or run (hello, McDonald?).

So what did we do instead? We STOPPED running in the second half (where we had success and the personnel to do it - Snyder and McDonald) and exclusively threw the ball when nobody outside of Boldin was originally in that game plan.

Dude, this guy makes ZERO sense to me.

lol, yup. And it kind of says that they're not even trying to create match-ups with the WRs. Makes sense now since most of our pass plays have been generated out of run formations and almost all to VD.

Originally posted by verb1der:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by verb1der:

Q: With the offenses use of two tight ends so often and the injuries that you had Sunday, are you looking to incorporate more three wide receiver packages to kind of expand the overall multiplicity of your personnel going forward?

Greg Roman: "We're always looking to do that. I think when we had two tight ends go down the other day, based on that game plan, that was not ideal. But, you've got to deal with it. The things that we did in the game we practiced. I think we're always, as we keep getting receivers back, we'll probably be a little more of a two, three wide receiver unit. But bottom line is irregardless of circumstance, you've got to find a way to execute and get it done. And these are things we plan for, but that particular game it was a very high percentage of tight end oriented things. So, hope that answers your question."

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/49ers/archives/2013/11/greg-roman-on-offensive-woes-it-definitely-starts-with-me.html#storylink=cpy

hmm..

So once again, the game plan was a ton of 2 TE sets for running agsinst their front 7 and 100% passing to VD, as expected. Then VD went down as well as Celek (who we know is only in there to block). So you're telling me, Snyder (used to this role anyhow) couldn't "replace" Celek in the blocking game and with VD we couldn't pass or run (hello, McDonald?).

So what did we do instead? We STOPPED running in the second half (where we had success and the personnel to do it - Snyder and McDonald) and exclusively threw the ball when nobody outside of Boldin was originally in that game plan.

Dude, this guy makes ZERO sense to me.

lol, yup. And it kind of says that they're not even trying to create match-ups with the WRs. Makes sense now since most of our pass plays have been generated out of run formations and almost all to VD.

Just gets better with each Roman interview...nothing beats his last one though.

Okay, I've turned. Not a big fan of Roman any longer. I think he could get way more out of the personnel he has.

Originally posted by DonnieDarko:
Okay, I've turned. Not a big fan of Roman any longer. I think he could get way more out of the personnel he has.

Welcome to the bright side, brother!

He seems too heel bent on being creative instead of effective. But he can still redeem himself in my opinion with a strong stretch drive from the offense.

We were so close to getting rid of this guy if we had won the SB, and could have grabbed Pat Shurmur.