*When it comes to creativity with respect to offensive play design, scheming and play calling, matchups; Andy Reid no doubt about it. Reid is an offensive mastermind. Reid would be exactly what Marty could of used back in the day as an OC.
Problem is, Reid’s team are soft, lack discipline, good fundamentals, techniques, attitude and just sound foundational football in general that is necessary for winning a championship.
With that being said, when it comes to mental, physical toughness, fundamentals, techniques, overall team discipline, all those variables that are necessary for good foundational football....give me Marty any ****ing day of the week. Marty could compliment Reid in that aspect of team football. Plus, when it comes to defense, its Marty. Not. Even. Close. Marty could compliment Reid in that aspect of team football.
I think Marty’s team were in better position to succeed overall because of better team discipline, his teams won the field position battle lots of times (despite bad offense but good special teams and defense set up the offense to succeed) and of course, there is the turnover ratio which Marty’s excelled at most years in KC.
Special teams Im going to give the edge to Marty. His special teams didn’t have as many hiccups as Reid.
Hmmm, Its a tough question to answer. Marty’s team were representative of the key variable necessary to win a championship in defense which Reid doesn’t have obviously. It can be argued that Marty didn’t have the QB (Montana is an exception but he was here only 2 years and was in the twilight of his career), for the most part he didn’t have that other key variable in winning a championship which Reid has in a QB. Plus, Marty didn’t have luck either.
Both address each others weaknesses that if they were coaching together, they could probably compliment each other lol...Which outweighs which? Offense and a QB > defense? Or the defense > than offense and QB? I know its an offensive league today but you still need a defense to win. I don’t give a **** you don’t win w/o a defense.
Im going to say defense because statistics prove that with a great turnover ratio in your teams favor, your teams chances of winning increase. Defense puts your offense in a better position to score if they could win the field position battle for you and they could also score as well.
Even though Marty didn’t have a bright offensive mind, at least, his teams did protect the football well and made few mistakes. And they also ran the ball well and had very very sound blocking units as well on both offense and special teams.
If I had to chose which coach I’d rather have, give me Marty. Im going with the minority on this one. Because he represents all the other variables that are necessary for overall team success whereas Reid lacks a lot of those variables big time and is to depend on Mahomes to succeed. Overall, Marty’s teams were more complete. He addresses exactly what you need if you’re starting to building a team from scratch and the proper way on how teams should be built if only he had the QB, OC and some luck he’d probably be the greatest coach in history. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Coochie liquor:
I went with Andy because of his offensive concepts. Drawing up plays for offense, Andy would run circles around Marty.
Originally Posted by Easy 6:
Reid is the more dynamic football mind, IMO
Marty's teams were more motivated and tougher.
His teams were tougher and more disciplined
He's defenses were far superior in every way
He's special teams were just as good (mike stock?)
He's offensive lines were just as good, probably better(Solari)
His running games were just as good
Marty could get his guys to play over their heads. This, and his philosophy on offense, worked until the playoffs. Andy is on 10 more levels when it comes to offense. [Reply]