Martyball no more? (1 Viewer)

[Ministry of Pain]

I'm not going to add much other than I haven't been impressed with San Diego at all this year. They had a nice run to close the season during the soft part of their schedule, but I'm still not buying this team is really that much better than the team we saw the first half of the season. They have their ideal matchup next week though. Over the last couple years, they have pretty much made the Colts look silly during their meetings. Much better to face them then the Pats who gave them the business in week 2.

Question KRS...is anyone buying any team in the playoffs that is not New England at this point? We could debate the 4 teams left in the NFC and it won't surprise me if the 2 teams with 13-3 records fall this weekend...but in the end what is there to really discuss about teams that do not have Tom Brady or Peyton Manning leading them right now? I do want to correct myself on one important point that was touched on in several posts and that is the fact San Diego has beaten this Indy team a couple of times the past 2-3 seasons...and I think that is the only thing that is keping them under double digits in Vegas at the moment.

 

[Despyzer]

It's hard to debate with fans of the team, they just simply cannot look at things objectively(Not everyone of course)

This is very true. I know you weren't speaking to me, but I know sometimes I get a little out of control.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I'm not going to add much other than I haven't been impressed with San Diego at all this year. They had a nice run to close the season during the soft part of their schedule, but I'm still not buying this team is really that much better than the team we saw the first half of the season. They have their ideal matchup next week though. Over the last couple years, they have pretty much made the Colts look silly during their meetings. Much better to face them then the Pats who gave them the business in week 2.

Question KRS...is anyone buying any team in the playoffs that is not New England at this point? We could debate the 4 teams left in the NFC and it won't surprise me if the 2 teams with 13-3 records fall this weekend...but in the end what is there to really discuss about teams that do not have Tom Brady or Peyton Manning leading them right now? I do want to correct myself on one important point that was touched on in several posts and that is the fact San Diego has beaten this Indy team a couple of times the past 2-3 seasons...and I think that is the only thing that is keping them under double digits in Vegas at the moment.

I'm buying Indy and tentatively Jacksonville (in the AFC) if Garrard shows up. A weakened Indy gave New England the business the majority of their regular season matchup. Count me as one of the few non-haters that think New England may have peaked a little too early. Still a team to beat, but they haven't looked head and shoulders better than any legit team since week 6. Right now, I think New England is beatable by Green Bay, Indy, Jacksonville and New York (in about that order).

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

all this being said I am interested to see how the Bolts perform in a playoff game on the road as a big underdog. Nice having the role reversed for a change

 

[tommyGunZ]

I do want to correct myself on one important point that was touched on in several posts and that is the fact San Diego has beaten this Indy team a couple of times the past 2-3 seasons...and I think that is the only thing that is keping them under double digits in Vegas at the moment.

Well duh. What better way to analyze the matchup than to look at recent previous match-ups. If the line goes to double digits, I'll have several units invested in the underdog. I've been on record for years proclaiming Peyton Manning as the greatest QB of all time, but the passing game is the only aspect in which the Colts have a decided advantage. In almost every area, I'd favor the Chargers, except perhaps at FG kicker since Nate is banged up.

 

[Gr00vus]

I do want to correct myself on one important point that was touched on in several posts and that is the fact San Diego has beaten this Indy team a couple of times the past 2-3 seasons...and I think that is the only thing that is keping them under double digits in Vegas at the moment.

Well duh. What better way to analyze the matchup than to look at recent previous match-ups. If the line goes to double digits, I'll have several units invested in the underdog. I've been on record for years proclaiming Peyton Manning as the greatest QB of all time, but the passing game is the only aspect in which the Colts have a decided advantage. In almost every area, I'd favor the Chargers, except perhaps at FG kicker since Nate is banged up.

Gates being out would give the Colts a huge advantage at WR/TE.I'm happy with the playoff win. What it justifies isn't so much Norv but AJ and what a great job he's done putting the team together. I think this year's results are already marginally better than they were last year. The playoff win is very big for this organization. It may not equate to beating the Patriots last year, but it definitely puts them ahead of losing to the Jets three years ago, and I think probably ahead of losing to the Pats last year as well. If nothing else its an important building block going forward, especially in a year nobody but the Pats should expect to win the whole thing. I think some people have lost perspective about these things. What other team made it to and won a playoff game under a totally rebuilt coaching staff this season? It's a rhetorical question - no other team did. People are pretty quick to dismiss the effect an entire regime change has on a football team, even one that was already successful.I don't expect them to win next week, they deserve to be underdogs, but they do have a legitimate chance to win, and I expect them to acquit themselves well win or lose.

 

[Despyzer]

What's with the "duh"s from fellow Chargers fans today?

 

[Tau837]

Bottom line is Indy will expose the Chargers next week. They have won 7 games in a row if I am not mistaken, however other than the Titans who they beat twice, none of those teams have winning records. They struggled mightily earlier in the season against teams with good records. People that are pushing the stats or numbers to try and justify Norv Turner didn't watch any games last year apparently. San Diego beat a lot of good times and had Indy not come back from 21 down in the AFCC, we would have said the Chargers lost to the Super Bowl winners, the NE Patriots. Maybe that would have had an impact on whether Marty was ousted or not too.

Last season, San Diego was 3-3 vs. teams with a winning record. They beat Denver (9-7) twice and Kansas City (9-7) once. They lost to Kansas City (9-7), New England (12-4), and Baltimore (13-3).This season, San Diego is also 3-3 vs. teams with a winning record, so far. They beat Indy (13-3) once and Tennessee (10-6) twice. They lost to Green Bay (13-3), New England (16-0), and Jacksonville (11-5). IMO, the quality of their opponents in the 3 victories this year seems the same or better as last year, and the quality of the opponents in their losses seems higher. And all of these losses this year were on the road. Last year, they lost to New England at home.Now they have a chance to beat Indy again. We'll see.

This team was 5-5 at one point and playing in one of the easiest divisions this year...what was going on with the team back 2 months ago? They beat up on some pretty awful teams and managed to come back twice on Tennessee who is not that good. They(Titans) have absolutely no WR to throw to...I think Reggie, Marvin, Anthony, and Dallas will have a much bigger impact this week on their secondary.

What is so hard to understand? They had an entirely new coaching staff and took some time to gel. Unfortunately, their first 3 games included away games at New England and Green Bay. Those losses don't look so bad right now. When they were 5-5, they had beaten Chicago, Denver (away), Oakland, Houston, and Indy and they had lost to Green Bay (away), New England (away), Kansas City, Minnesota (away), and Jacksonville (away). After opening 1-3, they righted the ship and went 10-2 the rest of the way. Now 11-2.Yes, of course, their secondary will be tested more by the Colts passing game. Duh. Is that supposed to be some sort of revelation? That may well be their undoing this week, but it remains to be seen.

Why do you take what I post personally? Look at your response as you go into the "Duh...revelation" comment...it really lowers the posting back and forth. You're a smart guy in here, never understand why you take it down levels when there is no need to. I simply stated they were 5-5 at one point and asked what was going on 2 months ago...It's hard to debate with fans of the team, they just simply cannot look at things objectively(Not everyone of course), and that's why when I used to post point spreads that I always said don't bet on the teams you root for because you likely will be looking at them with at least a hint of rose color in those glasses. I root for Miami and Tampa Bay, and I haven't bet on either team in the last 7-8 years...no matter what. I understand some fans can do it but the majority cannot. Don't get mad JWB, I stopped posting in this thread awhile back, and I can see you have a lot of strong feelings about San Diego.

Sorry about that. I should have said:Yes, of course, their secondary will be tested more by the Colts passing game. That may well be their undoing this week, but it remains to be seen.

 

[tommyGunZ]

What's with the "duh"s from fellow Chargers fans today?

I enjoy "duh's" directed to MOP.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I do want to correct myself on one important point that was touched on in several posts and that is the fact San Diego has beaten this Indy team a couple of times the past 2-3 seasons...and I think that is the only thing that is keping them under double digits in Vegas at the moment.

Well duh. What better way to analyze the matchup than to look at recent previous match-ups. If the line goes to double digits, I'll have several units invested in the underdog. I've been on record for years proclaiming Peyton Manning as the greatest QB of all time, but the passing game is the only aspect in which the Colts have a decided advantage. In almost every area, I'd favor the Chargers, except perhaps at FG kicker since Nate is banged up.

WR? Chambers/Jackson < Wayne/Gonzalez and Harrison may be back. Also is Gates out? I think Gates being out will be a big blow to SD. I think one of the biggest issues with SD is the OL is not playing at a strong enough level. Last year they did a much better job. I also thought Rivers would step forward and he really hasn't. He hit some WIDE open guys but other teams won't allow that IMO.I wish the Giants receivers could get some separation for Eli.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I think one of the biggest issues with SD is the OL is not playing at a strong enough level. Last year they did a much better job. I also thought Rivers would step forward and he really hasn't. He hit some WIDE open guys but other teams won't allow that IMO.I wish the Giants receivers could get some separation for Eli.

Charger WRs are so open b/c other teams are selling out to stop the run. If they drop 5 LT will kill them.With the Chargers, it's pick your poison. Tenn choose Rivers, and he beat them.

 

[Despyzer]

Also is Gates out? I think Gates being out will be a big blow to SD.

Gates is great, but I'm not all that worried if he is out. Manu and Naane are players.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Norv steps up and gets a playoff win. :(

Yup, way to go Norv. He got San Diego to the second round of the playoffs. The Chargers haven't made it this far since... last year, when Marty Schottenheimer coached the team to a 14-2 record and a first-round bye before getting fired in the offseason.I don't care how many playoff wins my franchise gets, I care how far they advance. 2-1 and SB loser beats the heck out of 2-1 and AFCCG loser.

So.... 1-0 isn't better than 0-1?

If both result in a loss in the second round, then no. The goal is to win the superbowl, and both would have come just as close. Actual record in the playoffs is misleading. If someone makes the playoffs once in 10 years and goes 2-1, he'll have a 66% career playoff winning percentage, but I'd rather have a coach with a 10-10 record in the playoffs over the same span, instead. Or I'd rather have a coach who gets a first-round bye ever year and loses every playoff game than a coach who never gets a first-round bye, only makes it to the second round 33% of the time, and never advances past that.If Norv wins next week, then it's time to start talking about how San Diego made the right call. At this point, Norv has done no better than Marty.

I understand this line of thinking. But at the same time, it's awful nice to get a playoff win.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If Norv wins next week, then it's time to start talking about how San Diego made the right call. At this point, Norv has done no better than Marty.

Specifically, what call are you referring to?

Schotty's firing.

And how do you figure the success or lack of success next week bears any reflection on that decision? Marty wasn't fired for not winning playoff games. In fact, he was offered a contract extension after losing last year.

Oh, sure, I get it. Schotty was fired for trying to hire his brother and for clashing with the GM. Really.Tell me honestly- if Schotty had won the superbowl, or even MADE the superbowl, do you think the owner would have cared that he wanted to hire his brother or that he clashed with the GM? If Bill Belichick wanted to hire his mistress as OC and four illegitimate lovechildren as position coaches, you think Kraft would show him the door? Didn't think so. The NFL is a performance-based industry, and no matter what anyone says, all decisions ultimately come back to that.

Despyzer is right.If Schotty had won the Super Bowl, maybe the owner would have given in on the Kurt issue. But Marty wasn't fired for wanting to bring in Kurt. He was fired for wanting to bring in Kurt after the owner had just told him not to. How well or how poorly Norv does has nothing to do with whether insubordination is a good reason to fire a coach. They are separate issues.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Marty's staff did a very good job last year during the regular season after the Ravens game.

Norv's staff did a very good job this year after a rough start.

Norv's staff also has the advantage of not having a dysfunctional relationship with the front office.

I'm optimistic about the team's future, and about the game in Indy.

 

[SSOG]

What do you mean Shanahan hasn't advanced any further in the playoffs than Turner? 2005 AFC Championship Game down? Shanahan has gotten further in the past 3 years than Turner has at any point in his entire career. And why are we arbitrarily picking the past 9 years? Over the past one year, Turner has advanced further in the playoffs than Bill Cowher. Over the past two years, he's advanced further in the playoffs than Andy Reid. You gonna make the case that he has a better postseason resume than either of those notables, too?

Shanahan has two superbowl championships, two superbowl appearances, three AFCCG appearances, four divisional round appearances, and seven wildcard appearances in 14 years as a coach. Turner has 0 superbowl championships, 0 superbowl appearances, 0 League Championship appearances, two divisional round appearances, and two wildcard appearances in 10 years as a coach. Even if you do want to arbitrarily pick whatever window makes your point look not quite as asinine as it really is, you can compare Shanahan's postseason record over the past 9 years and it still blows out Turner's career postseason record. 1 AFCCG appearance, 1 divisional appearance, 4 wildcard appearances in 9 years trumps 0 AFCCG appearances, 2 divisional appearances, and 2 wildcard appearances in 10 years no matter how you slice it.

Yes, it was actually. I had forgotten that den had earned a bye week that season.I do stand by the fact the last nine years is a better indicator of recent playoff success than the last one year though.

I thought none of the bolded section mattered to you. All that matters is how deep they get into the playoffs? That's not my criteria for comparing coaches... it's YOURS. In nine years shanny has made it to the CCG once and in five years Turner hasn't made it... yet. But this year's not over.

Ummm... I said what matters is how far a team makes it in the playoffs. You bolded a section where I detailed how far each coach had gone in the playoffs, and you tell me that according to my criteria (how far a coach goes), that doesn't matter? I think you're missing something here.Also, I never said that was ALL that mattered. Notice how I mentioned Schotty's regular season record and 3 CotY awards? That would indicate I place value on something else. All I was saying is that IF YOU'RE GOING TO COMPARE PLAYOFF RESUMES, compare how far the teams advanced, not how many games they won. Why penalize coaches for getting a first round bye, and reward them for not making the playoffs in the first place?

As for the loss to the Jets three years ago, is it Schottenheimer's fault that his normally reliable kicker missed a very makable FG that would have won the game? Same thing happened to him in '95 with the Chiefs when they lost 10-7 to the Colts in the divisional round.

Not to mention the play last year where San Diego got a game-winning stop on 4th down against NE, but instead of knocking the ball down the player went for the INT, and then instead of falling down he tried to run and coughed it up. If that ball had simply been batted down, Schotty would have made the AFCCG (and who knows what would have happened from there). Is the difference between Marty being a great coach and Marty deserving to be fired just a player losing his head and intercepting a ball instead of knocking it down? Is his entire career with the Bolts defined by a single play?

Then explain the fact that he was offered a contract extension after the loss. Explain the fact that he wasn't fired until nearly a month after that loss. The lack of success may have been a good reason to fire him, but it certainly wasn't THE Reason. Let's let the facts dictate what happened instead of relying on your lazy conjecture.

Right. And the Yankees didn't mind Torre's postseason woes in the slightest, either. I mean, how else do you explain the fact that they offered him a contract extension?

 

[Tau837]

Not to mention the play last year where San Diego got a game-winning stop on 4th down against NE, but instead of knocking the ball down the player went for the INT, and then instead of falling down he tried to run and coughed it up. If that ball had simply been batted down, Schotty would have made the AFCCG (and who knows what would have happened from there). Is the difference between Marty being a great coach and Marty deserving to be fired just a player losing his head and intercepting a ball instead of knocking it down? Is his entire career with the Bolts defined by a single play?

You are right about the one play. But Marty had his share of poor decisions/coaching in that game. And ultimately the HC is accountable for his players' play on the field, anyway.If Marty didn't have such a history of failure in the playoffs over a fairly large sample size, including another disappointing home loss with the Chargers, your "would have made the AFCCG and who know what would have happened" point would carry more weight.

 

[Mr. PadresLakers]

Not to mention the play last year where San Diego got a game-winning stop on 4th down against NE, but instead of knocking the ball down the player went for the INT, and then instead of falling down he tried to run and coughed it up. If that ball had simply been batted down, Schotty would have made the AFCCG (and who knows what would have happened from there). Is the difference between Marty being a great coach and Marty deserving to be fired just a player losing his head and intercepting a ball instead of knocking it down? Is his entire career with the Bolts defined by a single play?

You are right about the one play. But Marty had his share of poor decisions/coaching in that game. And ultimately the HC is accountable for his players' play on the field, anyway.If Marty didn't have such a history of failure in the playoffs over a fairly large sample size, including another disappointing home loss with the Chargers, your "would have made the AFCCG and who know what would have happened" point would carry more weight.

I know what would have happened. Rivers would have been out and Volek would have been starting. Easy win for the Colts.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

What's with the "duh"s from fellow Chargers fans today?

I enjoy "duh's" directed to MOP.

 

[trader jake]

all this being said I am interested to see how the Bolts perform in a playoff game on the road as a big underdog. Nice having the role reversed for a change

Huh? Than Norv's the right guy for the job...I guess.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

all this being said I am interested to see how the Bolts perform in a playoff game on the road as a big underdog. Nice having the role reversed for a change

Huh?

HE SAID IT'S NICE HAVING THE ROLES REVERSED FOR A CHANGE. [/shout]

 

[SSOG]

Not to mention the play last year where San Diego got a game-winning stop on 4th down against NE, but instead of knocking the ball down the player went for the INT, and then instead of falling down he tried to run and coughed it up. If that ball had simply been batted down, Schotty would have made the AFCCG (and who knows what would have happened from there). Is the difference between Marty being a great coach and Marty deserving to be fired just a player losing his head and intercepting a ball instead of knocking it down? Is his entire career with the Bolts defined by a single play?

You are right about the one play. But Marty had his share of poor decisions/coaching in that game. And ultimately the HC is accountable for his players' play on the field, anyway.If Marty didn't have such a history of failure in the playoffs over a fairly large sample size, including another disappointing home loss with the Chargers, your "would have made the AFCCG and who know what would have happened" point would carry more weight.

What just gets me, though, is the precarious nature of our opinions of Marty Schottenheimer. If John Elway doesn't execute the most famous drive in NFL history, Schotty has a SB appearance. If Ernest Bynar doesn't have the most famous fumble in NFL history, Schotty has a second SB appearance. If there's no INT/Fumble last year, he has another AFCCG appearance. Change three plays, and suddenly the public perception of Schotty is RADICALLY different. If he wins just one of the following games, he's either perceived as another Bill Cowher (lots of solid showings and 1 SB ring to show for them), or another Marv Levy (3 SB appearances would be impressive even if he had no rings as a result). And this isn't even talking about poor luck with field goals or anything of that nature- we're talking about three of the biggest fluke plays in playoff history being all that's separating Schotty the choker from Schotty the all-time great.

 

[Mr. PadresLakers]

Lets get back to the core issue:

What is the better coaching group?

Marty Schotenheimer and Kurt Schotenheimer or Norv Turner, Ted Cottrell and Ron Rivera.

 

[KellysHeroes]

This will be a good Game... SD usuallys plays Indy very well; especially in the past couple of yrs. I believe SDC has a 2 - 0 record against them in the past 3 yrs.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Not to mention the play last year where San Diego got a game-winning stop on 4th down against NE, but instead of knocking the ball down the player went for the INT, and then instead of falling down he tried to run and coughed it up. If that ball had simply been batted down, Schotty would have made the AFCCG (and who knows what would have happened from there). Is the difference between Marty being a great coach and Marty deserving to be fired just a player losing his head and intercepting a ball instead of knocking it down? Is his entire career with the Bolts defined by a single play?

You are right about the one play. But Marty had his share of poor decisions/coaching in that game. And ultimately the HC is accountable for his players' play on the field, anyway.If Marty didn't have such a history of failure in the playoffs over a fairly large sample size, including another disappointing home loss with the Chargers, your "would have made the AFCCG and who know what would have happened" point would carry more weight.

What just gets me, though, is the precarious nature of our opinions of Marty Schottenheimer. If John Elway doesn't execute the most famous drive in NFL history, Schotty has a SB appearance. If Ernest Bynar doesn't have the most famous fumble in NFL history, Schotty has a second SB appearance. If there's no INT/Fumble last year, he has another AFCCG appearance. Change three plays, and suddenly the public perception of Schotty is RADICALLY different. If he wins just one of the following games, he's either perceived as another Bill Cowher (lots of solid showings and 1 SB ring to show for them), or another Marv Levy (3 SB appearances would be impressive even if he had no rings as a result). And this isn't even talking about poor luck with field goals or anything of that nature- we're talking about three of the biggest fluke plays in playoff history being all that's separating Schotty the choker from Schotty the all-time great.

Once, fine. Twice, unlucky. But when we keep pointing to "that one play" time and time again, you have to think that maybe there were coaching errors that let the game come down to one play. The good teams can absorb a bad play and keep going. The Chargers shouldn't have had it come down to one play. They should have played better defense at the end, put the team away earlier and not had to depend on a last-second long FG. You said if we change three plays, the public perception of Marty would be different. And that might be true. But those three plays could be plays earlier in the game-- more aggresisve play-calling, better scheming, etc-- that would have allowed the team to absorb the play you're thinking about. If the Chargers (and his other teams) had done different things earlier in the game, those plays wouldn't have mattered.Nobody would care about "The Drive" if the Broncos had been down by 14. Byner wouldn't be a scapegoat if the Browns were just looking to pad a nice lead at the time. I like Marty, but he lost those games over four quarters; not one play or dirve here and there.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I think one of the biggest issues with SD is the OL is not playing at a strong enough level. Last year they did a much better job. I also thought Rivers would step forward and he really hasn't. He hit some WIDE open guys but other teams won't allow that IMO.I wish the Giants receivers could get some separation for Eli.

Charger WRs are so open b/c other teams are selling out to stop the run. If they drop 5 LT will kill them.With the Chargers, it's pick your poison. Tenn choose Rivers, and he beat them.

I agree that Tennessee was trying to stop the run and the linebackers were up a lot but many times they dropped into a zone and just let guys run free. They had some obvious mistakes.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Also is Gates out? I think Gates being out will be a big blow to SD.

Gates is great, but I'm not all that worried if he is out. Manu and Naane are players.

OK, if you are not worried then I feel better Anytime a weapon is taken away it has an impact, how much is the question, but there is no question it impacts the offense...probably other players performance.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Not to mention the play last year where San Diego got a game-winning stop on 4th down against NE, but instead of knocking the ball down the player went for the INT, and then instead of falling down he tried to run and coughed it up. If that ball had simply been batted down, Schotty would have made the AFCCG (and who knows what would have happened from there). Is the difference between Marty being a great coach and Marty deserving to be fired just a player losing his head and intercepting a ball instead of knocking it down? Is his entire career with the Bolts defined by a single play?

You are right about the one play. But Marty had his share of poor decisions/coaching in that game. And ultimately the HC is accountable for his players' play on the field, anyway.If Marty didn't have such a history of failure in the playoffs over a fairly large sample size, including another disappointing home loss with the Chargers, your "would have made the AFCCG and who know what would have happened" point would carry more weight.

What just gets me, though, is the precarious nature of our opinions of Marty Schottenheimer. If John Elway doesn't execute the most famous drive in NFL history, Schotty has a SB appearance. If Ernest Bynar doesn't have the most famous fumble in NFL history, Schotty has a second SB appearance. If there's no INT/Fumble last year, he has another AFCCG appearance. Change three plays, and suddenly the public perception of Schotty is RADICALLY different. If he wins just one of the following games, he's either perceived as another Bill Cowher (lots of solid showings and 1 SB ring to show for them), or another Marv Levy (3 SB appearances would be impressive even if he had no rings as a result). And this isn't even talking about poor luck with field goals or anything of that nature- we're talking about three of the biggest fluke plays in playoff history being all that's separating Schotty the choker from Schotty the all-time great.

I agree, not having a team prepared or making horrible decisions are the coaching parts, but when a player does something he isn't supposed to, it is hard to blame the coach. Marty has been unlucky if you ask me, but he is a very reliable coach and is every bit as good as many coaches who get WAY more credit than he does/did.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

all this being said I am interested to see how the Bolts perform in a playoff game on the road as a big underdog. Nice having the role reversed for a change

Huh?

HE SAID IT'S NICE HAVING THE ROLES REVERSED FOR A CHANGE. [/shout]

yeah!usually the bolts are a home favorite. I want to see how they do as a road dog

 

[Tau837]

Not to mention the play last year where San Diego got a game-winning stop on 4th down against NE, but instead of knocking the ball down the player went for the INT, and then instead of falling down he tried to run and coughed it up. If that ball had simply been batted down, Schotty would have made the AFCCG (and who knows what would have happened from there). Is the difference between Marty being a great coach and Marty deserving to be fired just a player losing his head and intercepting a ball instead of knocking it down? Is his entire career with the Bolts defined by a single play?

You are right about the one play. But Marty had his share of poor decisions/coaching in that game. And ultimately the HC is accountable for his players' play on the field, anyway.If Marty didn't have such a history of failure in the playoffs over a fairly large sample size, including another disappointing home loss with the Chargers, your "would have made the AFCCG and who know what would have happened" point would carry more weight.

What just gets me, though, is the precarious nature of our opinions of Marty Schottenheimer. If John Elway doesn't execute the most famous drive in NFL history, Schotty has a SB appearance. If Ernest Bynar doesn't have the most famous fumble in NFL history, Schotty has a second SB appearance. If there's no INT/Fumble last year, he has another AFCCG appearance. Change three plays, and suddenly the public perception of Schotty is RADICALLY different. If he wins just one of the following games, he's either perceived as another Bill Cowher (lots of solid showings and 1 SB ring to show for them), or another Marv Levy (3 SB appearances would be impressive even if he had no rings as a result). And this isn't even talking about poor luck with field goals or anything of that nature- we're talking about three of the biggest fluke plays in playoff history being all that's separating Schotty the choker from Schotty the all-time great.

Once, fine. Twice, unlucky. But when we keep pointing to "that one play" time and time again, you have to think that maybe there were coaching errors that let the game come down to one play. The good teams can absorb a bad play and keep going. The Chargers shouldn't have had it come down to one play. They should have played better defense at the end, put the team away earlier and not had to depend on a last-second long FG. You said if we change three plays, the public perception of Marty would be different. And that might be true. But those three plays could be plays earlier in the game-- more aggresisve play-calling, better scheming, etc-- that would have allowed the team to absorb the play you're thinking about. If the Chargers (and his other teams) had done different things earlier in the game, those plays wouldn't have mattered.Nobody would care about "The Drive" if the Broncos had been down by 14. Byner wouldn't be a scapegoat if the Browns were just looking to pad a nice lead at the time. I like Marty, but he lost those games over four quarters; not one play or dirve here and there.

Just as is true with players, we can only evaluate coaches by what they do, not what they might have done. You mention that he would be another Cowher IF one or more plays were different and IF he then went on to win a Super Bowl. Well, in this hypothetical, why does Marty get the imaginary breaks but not Cowher? Give Cowher a few more IFs and he would still be better than Marty, even in your scenario. It just doesn't work to play the hypothetical game.The head coach is accountable for his team's results on the field. Yes, players make stupid plays. Yes, it is possible to get unlucky breaks. Yes, players get hurt. But those things are part of the game and it is the head coach's job to prepare his team to overcome them. The record shows Marty wasn't good at doing that, at least in the postseason. It is what it is.

 

[SSOG]

Not to mention the play last year where San Diego got a game-winning stop on 4th down against NE, but instead of knocking the ball down the player went for the INT, and then instead of falling down he tried to run and coughed it up. If that ball had simply been batted down, Schotty would have made the AFCCG (and who knows what would have happened from there). Is the difference between Marty being a great coach and Marty deserving to be fired just a player losing his head and intercepting a ball instead of knocking it down? Is his entire career with the Bolts defined by a single play?

You are right about the one play. But Marty had his share of poor decisions/coaching in that game. And ultimately the HC is accountable for his players' play on the field, anyway.If Marty didn't have such a history of failure in the playoffs over a fairly large sample size, including another disappointing home loss with the Chargers, your "would have made the AFCCG and who know what would have happened" point would carry more weight.

What just gets me, though, is the precarious nature of our opinions of Marty Schottenheimer. If John Elway doesn't execute the most famous drive in NFL history, Schotty has a SB appearance. If Ernest Bynar doesn't have the most famous fumble in NFL history, Schotty has a second SB appearance. If there's no INT/Fumble last year, he has another AFCCG appearance. Change three plays, and suddenly the public perception of Schotty is RADICALLY different. If he wins just one of the following games, he's either perceived as another Bill Cowher (lots of solid showings and 1 SB ring to show for them), or another Marv Levy (3 SB appearances would be impressive even if he had no rings as a result). And this isn't even talking about poor luck with field goals or anything of that nature- we're talking about three of the biggest fluke plays in playoff history being all that's separating Schotty the choker from Schotty the all-time great.

Once, fine. Twice, unlucky. But when we keep pointing to "that one play" time and time again, you have to think that maybe there were coaching errors that let the game come down to one play. The good teams can absorb a bad play and keep going. The Chargers shouldn't have had it come down to one play. They should have played better defense at the end, put the team away earlier and not had to depend on a last-second long FG. You said if we change three plays, the public perception of Marty would be different. And that might be true. But those three plays could be plays earlier in the game-- more aggresisve play-calling, better scheming, etc-- that would have allowed the team to absorb the play you're thinking about. If the Chargers (and his other teams) had done different things earlier in the game, those plays wouldn't have mattered.Nobody would care about "The Drive" if the Broncos had been down by 14. Byner wouldn't be a scapegoat if the Browns were just looking to pad a nice lead at the time. I like Marty, but he lost those games over four quarters; not one play or dirve here and there.

Just as is true with players, we can only evaluate coaches by what they do, not what they might have done. You mention that he would be another Cowher IF one or more plays were different and IF he then went on to win a Super Bowl. Well, in this hypothetical, why does Marty get the imaginary breaks but not Cowher? Give Cowher a few more IFs and he would still be better than Marty, even in your scenario. It just doesn't work to play the hypothetical game.The head coach is accountable for his team's results on the field. Yes, players make stupid plays. Yes, it is possible to get unlucky breaks. Yes, players get hurt. But those things are part of the game and it is the head coach's job to prepare his team to overcome them. The record shows Marty wasn't good at doing that, at least in the postseason. It is what it is.

There have been hundreds of thousands of plays executed over the course of Schottenheimer's coaching career. I'm merely pointing out that any perception of him that is tied almost entirely to THREE of those hundreds of thousands of plays is probably a flawed perception.I'm not saying that Schottenheimer coaches as well in the playoffs as he does in the regular season. The record is pretty clear that he doesn't. I have theories on why that is (I think a lot of his teams overachieve so much in the regular season that what we see in the playoffs is more in line with the results we should have been expecting all along)... but this isn't a question of whether Schottenheimer is as good in the playoffs as he is in the regular season. This is a question of whether he's GOOD ENOUGH in the playoffs. There's some sentiment that Schottenheimer simply CAN'T get it done, and that's just absurd. Schottenheimer is just as capable of winning big games as Manning, Cowher, or Dungy. They might not be his biggest strength, but that doesn't mean he's still not the right man for the job.

 

[Tau837]

I'm not saying that Schottenheimer coaches as well in the playoffs as he does in the regular season. The record is pretty clear that he doesn't. I have theories on why that is (I think a lot of his teams overachieve so much in the regular season that what we see in the playoffs is more in line with the results we should have been expecting all along)... but this isn't a question of whether Schottenheimer is as good in the playoffs as he is in the regular season. This is a question of whether he's GOOD ENOUGH in the playoffs. There's some sentiment that Schottenheimer simply CAN'T get it done, and that's just absurd. Schottenheimer is just as capable of winning big games as Manning, Cowher, or Dungy. They might not be his biggest strength, but that doesn't mean he's still not the right man for the job.

The bolded statement is exactly the crux of our disagreement. Marty has not won a playoff game since 1993, having lost his last 7 playoff games, of which 4 or 5 were at home. That is a span of 12 seasons that he was the head coach of the Chiefs, Redskins, or Chargers. To me, that is not GOOD ENOUGH.At some point, if you have a franchise for which the next step forward is clearly playoff success, you have to weigh the coach's postseason record and, if it is poor enough, make a change. Perhaps you would wait for 10 straight losses... or 15... I don't know. To me, his record over the last 15 years is enough to warrant a different head coach for a team talented enough to win in the playoffs.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Without diving into the middle of this debate again, I do not think it is accurate to say that if that SD DB hadn't fumbled that Brady INT last year, that the Chargers would have won the game. We don't know that. There were still 6 or 7 minutes left, IIRC, and who is to say the Patriots wouldn't have gotten the ball back and eventually tied the game up and then won it in OT or something. We don't know. But to say that the Chargers win the game if that guy doesn't fumble is misleading.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Without diving into the middle of this debate again, I do not think it is accurate to say that if that SD DB hadn't fumbled that Brady INT last year, that the Chargers would have won the game. We don't know that. There were still 6 or 7 minutes left, IIRC, and who is to say the Patriots wouldn't have gotten the ball back and eventually tied the game up and then won it in OT or something. We don't know. But to say that the Chargers win the game if that guy doesn't fumble is misleading.

but it would have been alot harder for the Pats to win, then getting a free first down at the Chargers 30.Knock the ball down

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I think any struggling team would love to have a Marty Schottenheimer as their coach. They'd be stupid not to. His recent track records of turning around franchises dwarfs Parcells. He took over a laughing stock in San Diego and made them one of the best teams in the league hands down. Any fan of Miami, Atlanta, San Fran, St. Louis etc that says they wouldn't want him is delusional.

This guy will take a franchise out of the gutter and make it a perennial 10-12 win team. If you're already at that level, I can see the argument against not wanting him (although it's doubtful you'd be looking for a coach anyway), but if you're a fan of one of those bum franchises out there that hasn't sniffed the playoffs in half a decade in here arguing that Marty sucks, you need to just stop.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I think any struggling team would love to have a Marty Schottenheimer as their coach. They'd be stupid not to. His recent track records of turning around franchises dwarfs Parcells. He took over a laughing stock in San Diego and made them one of the best teams in the league hands down. Any fan of Miami, Atlanta, San Fran, St. Louis etc that says they wouldn't want him is delusional.This guy will take a franchise out of the gutter and make it a perennial 10-12 win team. If you're already at that level, I can see the argument against not wanting him (although it's doubtful you'd be looking for a coach anyway), but if you're a fan of one of those bum franchises out there that hasn't sniffed the playoffs in half a decade in here arguing that Marty sucks, you need to just stop.

I agree that the Falcons or any of the other struggling franchises you mentioned would be fortunate to get Marty to take over the rebuilding process. And while he deserves a lot of the credit for turning around the Chargers, Marty was fortunate to be given some awfully good talent by his GM in San Diego.

 

[Gr00vus]

Without diving into the middle of this debate again, I do not think it is accurate to say that if that SD DB hadn't fumbled that Brady INT last year, that the Chargers would have won the game. We don't know that. There were still 6 or 7 minutes left, IIRC, and who is to say the Patriots wouldn't have gotten the ball back and eventually tied the game up and then won it in OT or something. We don't know. But to say that the Chargers win the game if that guy doesn't fumble is misleading.

but it would have been alot harder for the Pats to win, then getting a free first down at the Chargers 30.Knock the ball down

Lost in the discussion of whether or not McCree should have gone down is what happened immediately after the play. An incredibly ill advised coaching challenge. It was obvious there was nothing to overturn, yet Marty went ahead and threw the red flag out of desperation. An idiotic decision that cost his team a time out, which probably cost them a better shot at tying up or possibly even winning the game on their last possession. And Marty made bad decisions like that throughout that game. Contrast that to last week, where Norv made the right decisions right on down the line, and somehow Norv's team didn't have mental breakdowns throughout the course of the game even though they had some adversity. The receivers managed to catch just about everything that came their way instead of looking like they were in panic mode. It's pretty clear to me that Marty isn't the guy you want to have coaching a team in the playoffs. Sure players screw up, but its the coaches job to, if not correct, at least not exacerbate the problems. For whatever reason Marty doesn't seem to be able to do that.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

And Marty made bad decisions like that throughout that game.

Going for it on fourth and eleven in the first quarter is a good example. Here's a story behind that (if you believe the guy):

I know somebody that had full audio access to that game. [Marty was "mic'd up" by NFL Films. --MT] What he said was mind-blowing.

You'll remember the infamous 4th and 11 call that probably doomed SD in the first quarter. This was the exchange that was heard “down-the-line” between Marty and Cam Cameron.

Marty: We're going for it.

Cameron: No f'ing way coach, we're kicking.

Marty: Find a play. We're going for it.

From then on it was a huge argument with cursing left and right. They had to call a time out and when Rivers came over he said, "What's going on, why aren't we kicking the field goal?"

So early in the second quarter, Marty yells into the mic, "#######it, I'm so hyped up someone needs to get over here and calm me down." So the special teams coach comes over to him and talks to him and Marty says, "I was pulling into the parking lot today and I decided we were going to be aggressive. People don't think I can be aggressive but I decided driving in that we were going to be." And the ST coach says, "Coach. You can't let the outside stuff get to you." I think it's interesting, at best, that Schottenheimer was making decisions in the parking lot with regard to strategy.

 

[tommyGunZ]

And Marty made bad decisions like that throughout that game.

Going for it on fourth and eleven in the first quarter is a good example. Here's a story behind that (if you believe the guy):

I know somebody that had full audio access to that game. [Marty was "mic'd up" by NFL Films. --MT] What he said was mind-blowing.

You'll remember the infamous 4th and 11 call that probably doomed SD in the first quarter. This was the exchange that was heard “down-the-line” between Marty and Cam Cameron.

Marty: We're going for it.

Cameron: No f'ing way coach, we're kicking.

Marty: Find a play. We're going for it.

From then on it was a huge argument with cursing left and right. They had to call a time out and when Rivers came over he said, "What's going on, why aren't we kicking the field goal?"

So early in the second quarter, Marty yells into the mic, "#######it, I'm so hyped up someone needs to get over here and calm me down." So the special teams coach comes over to him and talks to him and Marty says, "I was pulling into the parking lot today and I decided we were going to be aggressive. People don't think I can be aggressive but I decided driving in that we were going to be." And the ST coach says, "Coach. You can't let the outside stuff get to you." I think it's interesting, at best, that Schottenheimer was making decisions in the parking lot with regard to strategy.

Wow. That is astonishing. I thought getting rid of Marty was the right move, but that sounds over the top. I know Marty is on record saying "Cam told me he had a play, and we went for it". If it really went down like this person with access to the NFL films audio claims it did, I'm surprised Cam didn't come out and contradict Marty.

 

[BoltBacker]

Wow. That is astonishing. I thought getting rid of Marty was the right move, but that sounds over the top. I know Marty is on record saying "Cam told me he had a play, and we went for it". If it really went down like this person with access to the NFL films audio claims it did, I'm surprised Cam didn't come out and contradict Marty.

This is a recycle league. Marty has a lot less to lose by throwing Cam under the bus than Cam has to lose by even being perceived as throwing Marty under the bus(even if he's telling the truth). I have no idea if this was true or not but it was a class move by Cam to stay mum about the subject if it was true.I like both coaches and "You'll remember the infamous 4th and 11 call that probably doomed SD in the first quarter." is probably the most over-the-top part. And "I think it's interesting, at best, that Schottenheimer was making decisions in the parking lot with regard to strategy."... well coaches make decisions with regard to strategy all week long. Bottom line he if he was going to get beat he wanted to get beat by being aggresive and giving his talent(the #1 ranked offense in the NFL) every opportunity to win the game. It was a bad call... but this piece seems to go out of it's way to paint Marty in a bad light if you ask me which makes me question it's accuracy.

 

[Mr. PadresLakers]

Wow. That is astonishing. I thought getting rid of Marty was the right move, but that sounds over the top. I know Marty is on record saying "Cam told me he had a play, and we went for it". If it really went down like this person with access to the NFL films audio claims it did, I'm surprised Cam didn't come out and contradict Marty.

This is a recycle league. Marty has a lot less to lose by throwing Cam under the bus than Cam has to lose by even being perceived as throwing Marty under the bus(even if he's telling the truth). I have no idea if this was true or not but it was a class move by Cam to stay mum about the subject if it was true.I like both coaches and "You'll remember the infamous 4th and 11 call that probably doomed SD in the first quarter." is probably the most over-the-top part. And "I think it's interesting, at best, that Schottenheimer was making decisions in the parking lot with regard to strategy."... well coaches make decisions with regard to strategy all week long. Bottom line he if he was going to get beat he wanted to get beat by being aggresive and giving his talent(the #1 ranked offense in the NFL) every opportunity to win the game. It was a bad call... but this piece seems to go out of it's way to paint Marty in a bad light if you ask me which makes me question it's accuracy.

The quotes are so over the top that it is unbelievable.

 

[BoltBacker]

I think any struggling team would love to have a Marty Schottenheimer as their coach. They'd be stupid not to. His recent track records of turning around franchises dwarfs Parcells. He took over a laughing stock in San Diego and made them one of the best teams in the league hands down. Any fan of Miami, Atlanta, San Fran, St. Louis etc that says they wouldn't want him is delusional.This guy will take a franchise out of the gutter and make it a perennial 10-12 win team. If you're already at that level, I can see the argument against not wanting him (although it's doubtful you'd be looking for a coach anyway), but if you're a fan of one of those bum franchises out there that hasn't sniffed the playoffs in half a decade in here arguing that Marty sucks, you need to just stop.

I've been saying this since the day he left SD. SD fans are bent because they can "only" win the division and can't win in the playoffs? I'll bet the entire city of DET wishes they could feel that pain. What a short memory we have of what the Chargers were before Marty took over. He's a great motivator and teacher of fundamentals and is there any doubt that he could get any team in the nfl into the playoffs in short order regardless the amount of talent on their roster?How is Marty not the HC in ATL right now? It's crazy.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Wow. That is astonishing. I thought getting rid of Marty was the right move, but that sounds over the top.

I know Marty is on record saying "Cam told me he had a play, and we went for it". If it really went down like this person with access to the NFL films audio claims it did, I'm surprised Cam didn't come out and contradict Marty.

This is a recycle league. Marty has a lot less to lose by throwing Cam under the bus than Cam has to lose by even being perceived as throwing Marty under the bus(even if he's telling the truth). I have no idea if this was true or not but it was a class move by Cam to stay mum about the subject if it was true.

If the Jay Glazer article is true, I'd say it's because Cam is... timid... to use a nice word.

 

[BoltBacker]

Wow. That is astonishing. I thought getting rid of Marty was the right move, but that sounds over the top.

I know Marty is on record saying "Cam told me he had a play, and we went for it". If it really went down like this person with access to the NFL films audio claims it did, I'm surprised Cam didn't come out and contradict Marty.

This is a recycle league. Marty has a lot less to lose by throwing Cam under the bus than Cam has to lose by even being perceived as throwing Marty under the bus(even if he's telling the truth). I have no idea if this was true or not but it was a class move by Cam to stay mum about the subject if it was true.

If the Jay Glazer article is true, I'd say it's because Cam is... timid... to use a nice word.

Yeah, well if that's all true(who knows?) I have to admit I find it kind of funny that Traylor/Thomas/Taylor/Porter all stood up to show how manly there were in week #16... after playing like little girls all season long. If anyone played like the four of them did I would assume they'd have the dignity to simply cash their giant pay checks each week for doing nothing by saying as much... nothing. Good luck to those four because they are far more the reason MIA was 1-15 than Cam ever was. "Team Leaders" every one.

 

[Ghost Rider]

As much as I argued against Turner last week, I gotta give him props for what he has done. He has the Chargers in the AFC title game now, something Schottenheimer couldn't accomplish in San Diego. I am still not convinced he is a better than average head coach, but he has done a good job lately.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

As much as I argued against Turner last week, I gotta give him props for what he has done. He has the Chargers in the AFC title game now, something Schottenheimer couldn't accomplish in San Diego. I am still not convinced he is a better than average head coach, but he has done a good job lately.

he's got what every great head coach has, great players

 

[Tom Baker]

I give Norv all the credit. Marty probably loses that game.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I give Norv all the credit. Marty probably loses that game.

AJ smith is alot smarter about football than everyone on this board

 

[Tau837]

As much as I argued against Turner last week, I gotta give him props for what he has done. He has the Chargers in the AFC title game now, something Schottenheimer couldn't accomplish in San Diego. I am still not convinced he is a better than average head coach, but he has done a good job lately.

he's got what every great head coach has, great players

This is true, but Marty had great players too in his time with the Chargers and couldn't get it done at home in the playoffs. At least in comparison to Marty's postseason performance with the Chargers, Norv deserves some credit, not just an implication that the players are the sole reason for their success.

 

[Tau837]

I give Norv all the credit. Marty probably loses that game.