Martz is starting goofy stuff in Detroit already

[Bruce=GOAT]

im glad we had him but im also glad that he`s now gone!

im looking forward to more stability with Linehan at the helm and hopefully a team that will be built for success in the long term!

I feel the same way. I got tired of defending Martz to everyone who knew I was a Rams fan, and got tired of hearing the wasted timeout questions.

[tanus]

all i can do is just shake my head and laugh.

[Drew4EverRams]

better see a doc about that tanus,thats no way to live!:tongue:

[BIG-BLUE]

And the debate goes on, its funny how quick some will point out what Martz has accomplished in St. Louis, & are willing to overlook his huge child like ego. And i have yet to hear 1 Martz fan give credit to the ONLY coach in Rams history to WIN a Super Bowl for us. Now i do not believe for 1 second that Martz was the worst HC the Rams have ever had, (i'll throw Brooks in for that 1) But his huge ego, over confident & unorthodoxed ways had to go. Good luck Detroit

[Nick]

And i have yet to hear 1 Martz fan give credit to the ONLY coach in Rams history to WIN a Super Bowl for us.

You're absolutely right - no one who has ever supported Martz has EVER given ANY kind of credit to Dick Vermeil. Ever. In history. LOL

[HUbison]

his huge child like ego

I've heard this argument a lot, and I have to wonder a couple of notions:

1. What evidence does ANYONE have that Martz has a huge ego? (Not Terry Bradshaw said so, but actually data showing Martz' ego)

2. Assuming Martz does have some huge ego, name one game where that ego lead to a loss.


I am anxiously awaiting answers.

[txramsfan]

TxRamFan and General Counsel you know I love you guys, but how about crawling out of Martz's hind end for a minute and realize that he "inherited" some of the most talented offensive players in the history of the NFL, and a decent defense as a HC (what happened the year after Vermeil won the SB?). OH...and Martz retooled the defense?....give me a break. Yes, the Rams went to the Super Bowl under his HC, but I maintain then and to date the Rams did so IN SPITE OF HIM instead of because of him. His coaching miscues, dumb decisions, lousy clock management, stupid official challenges, waisted time out, etc during that SB year and beyond proves me right. Vermeil inherited one of the most dysfunctional, talent lacking teams in our franchise history (I can't remember that idiot's name who became our head coach from Oregon for obvious reasons, oh and Tony Banks...Wow...wasn't that memorable). Martz took a GREAT team and drove it into the ground. NUFF SAID!
:moon:

BRM. we are cool and tight. You know that. So before I rip this to pieces, just wanted to say to you like Will Ferrell did to Blue in Old School "BRM, your my boy".

Anyway, it's a well documented fact that Vermeil wanted to go into the 1999 campaign with Tony Banks at QB. Martz talked him into Trent Green. It's also a well documented fact Vermeil did not want to make the trade for Marshall Faulk, he didn't like his practice work ethic and thought a 2 and a 5 round draft pick was too much. Martz talked him into it. It's also well documented that Bruce wanted out after 1998, due to the fact Vermeil rode him like a broken mule. Martz soothed waters. Lastly, when Green went down, Vermeil wanted Hostetler but Martz told him to go with Warner.

Now, to Vermeils credit, he was the absolute motivator which Martz lacks. Vermeil pushed the buttons in 1999 that got this squad moving. Martz drove the bus.

[thoey]

Martz drove the bus.

While I am starting the lighten up on Martz and give him the praise he did deserve from us fans, while he may have drove the bus, I still think Dickie V kept them on the road. I don't think we could have done it without Martz or Dick. That Yin - Yan that lead to paradise...

[bigredman]

Everything you say is correct txramsfan. I knew about those personnel issues. Never said Martz doesn't know how to pick quality offensive talent. Drawing up offensive schemes, not many better. Things just away from him after being promoted to HC. I notice a recurring theme in your post. Vermeil may have been going in a different direction before getting Martz's input, but Vermeil DID change direction. Vermeil learned his lesson after Philadelphia, and surrounded himself with quality coaches, listened to them, and didn't oppose change. I don't know had the roles had been reversed, the same decisions would have been made.

[Nick]

I don't know had the roles had been reversed, the same decisions would have been made.

Really? Because the Rams w/ Martz brought in a quality defensive mind in Lovie Smith to take control of the defense after 2000. So I'd say Mike was more than capable of bringing in quality coaches, listening to them, and not opposing their ideas.

In fact, I wish he would have opposed some of Lovie's ideas a bit stronger, because then maybe we would have made a stronger push to keep London Fletcher instead of following Lovie's advice of thinking Duncan would be an instant replacement.

[bigredman]

Nick...not the same analogy. If Martz had his mind set on the players mentioned in txramsfan's post regarding Vermeil, and Vermeil had been Martz wanting Faulk, Warner, etc and come to him regarding making those changes on OFFENSE, I firmly believe Martz would not have had the flexibility or trust to do it. Its probably BECAUSE of that cocky, I know I'm right, that persuaded Vermeil, but wouldn't allow Martz to change his mind had the roles been reversed. Martz had no interest in the defense other than finding a coach to handle that end of the team. OH, yeh....he did a great job replacing Lovie, didn't he? (BTW, the Rams were interested in Lovie before, but couldn't get him because he was under contract)

[Nick]

I firmly believe Martz would not have had the flexibility or trust to do it.

And I firmly disagree, because he did exactly that when he preferred the team keep London Fletcher but yielded to Lovie's advice to replace London with Jamie Duncan. It seems like a pretty similar analogy to me, and I think just brushing it off by saying he simply had no interest in the defense is inaccurate because I don't recall seeing anything to suggest Martz had absolutely no interest in half of his team.

[RamJackson39]

The problem with Martz is that he often showed an inability to change. This is where his ego comes into play. Where a team will continually stop the pass, challenging the Rams to run, but that's not Martz's method. He refuses to move away from the passing game. He refuses to become more balanced, and in today's NFL; that wont get you a Super Bowl.

Yes, he did bring in Lovie. For that I give him credit. After Lovie though, he made a horrible decision in bringing in Marmie. Marmie had had no previous success anywhere. He is nothing better than a positional coach, yet Martz trusted him with the defense. I guess friendships are strong in his household. So strong that he lost his job over that hiring.

[Nick]

I guess friendships are strong in his household.

That could be the case, especially considering there weren't any friends to be found in the front office.

[txramsfan]

Nick, brings up a good point which most will just dismiss as nothing. If Martz had as big of an ego as most thought he did, why did he bring in Lovie then? Lovie was considered one of the best defensive minds in the league and Martz pretty much gave him an open field when it came to decisions on that side of the ball. Not something a big, egotistical HC would do I would think.