49ers OC Watch Day 9: A side helping of Rathman, or the main course?

by Fooch on Jan 7, 2009 8:00 AM PST in News Comment 52 comments

We're going on almost a week and a half since Mike Martz was shown the door as the offensive coordinator. In that time, the organization has been rather tight-lipped about who their considering for the position. Up to this points, two names have slipped out via Maiocco and Barrows: Scott Linehan and now Tom Rathman. We'll discuss Linehan at another point. For now, Tom Rathman raises some interesting questions worth discussing.

Coach Singletary mentioned Rathman as a guy he was interested in talking with, although no mention was made of what position exactly. Two options exist with Rathman. They could of course hire him for the big job, as offensive coordinator. Such a move would be ballsy at best, downright stupid at worst. Although nobody will call him the next Jim Hostler, it's certainly worth keeping in mind how that went down. A guy like Linehan may not be absolutely awesome, but he's got the experience that would be beneficial to this team.

The upside to Rathman the offensive coordinator, as Barrows was quick to point out, is that: 1) he's got the hard-nosed running style that Singletary is looking for, and 2) he's a nice connection to the glory days.

The second option is one I'm wildly intrigued by. Rathman comes on as running backs coach (it would be his second tenure at that position with the 49ers) and is basically groomed to become the next offensive coordinator. Such an idea is thrown out there by Ann Killion over at the Mercury News. The argument for this type of hire is that you get the best of both worlds. You can bring in someone experienced, like say a Scott Linehan and when he goes off for a head-coaching job, your RB coach is right there to take over.

This brings me to my own question of the hour. Every offensive coordinator starts at some lower position on the food chain. In the case of the Bill Walsh tree, a lot of these guys went from offensive assistant, to quarterbacks coach, to offensive coordinator. I'm wondering if QB coach to OC is a necessity to become an effective offensive coordinator?

On the one hand, the QB is one guy who is involved in every single play offensive play, even if it is just handing off the ball. As QB coach you have to know enough about the run game to work with your QB. However, if, like Singletary wants, the 49ers become a power running team, is a running backs coach promotion just as do-able? I've honestly been pondering this since Mike Martz was fired, and obviously this has become a hot-button issue with you guys.

I thought about throwing up a poll but it's not a black and white issue, given the availability of other options. So the basic question is how do you feel about Tom Rathman as a potential hire for the 49ers? Do you want him in as OC now? Would you prefer him in as RB coach with an experienced OC ahead of him, with Rathman being groomed to take over? Would you prefer Rathman as RB coach and nothing more? Am I out of my mind to think someone other than a QB coach can be groomed as a future OC? So many questions and thankfully we've got plenty of time to answer them.

Also, someone at Silver and Black Pride put up a FanPost mentioning the 49ers interest in Rathman. I threw up a comment asking them about Rathman's performance in Oakland. We'll see what kind of response I get.

0 recs | Comment 52 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

"Although nobody will call him the next Jim Hostler"

I will. Rathman will be the next Jim Hostler if Singletary gives him the OC job.

by methodrampage on Jan 7, 2009 9:12 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

With this said, I meant if Singletary gives him the OC job immediately (the first option Fooch discussed). I would have no problem with Rathman being brought in as RB coach type with the potential of grooming him as an OC. I just don’t think the Niners need a semi-rookie HC and a rookie OC next year.

by methodrampage on Jan 7, 2009 9:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree.

Singletary “succeeded” because he had a former head coach (and offensive whiz) calling the plays on offense. Considering his defensive background, and lack of playcalling in any regard, Singletary would be best suited finding himself an offensive coordinator who has called plays.

As method points out, I would have no problem if the 49ers wanted to bring in Rathman to be groomed under the new OC. That would at least show the 49ers have a plan for succession, which is one of the primary reasons why Nolan failed.

by sfgfan on Jan 7, 2009 9:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll third that

I’d really like to see Linehan as OC and would have no objections to bringing in Rathman as a potential successor, but dont really want to see the team depend on Singletary and Rathman for all the playcalling. Fooch says Linehan wouldnt be awesome, and technically I guess I agree, but as far as who is available right now he seems like one of the most awesome to me.

by sam23 on Jan 7, 2009 12:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

correction

I said he wouldn’t be absolutely awesome. I think one of the better realistic scenarios right now is bringing in Linehan as OC and Rathman as RB coach.

by Fooch on Jan 7, 2009 12:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

yea, actually I just saw that and was about to correct myself. We’re absolutely on the same page then.

by sam23 on Jan 7, 2009 12:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

anyone else out there who excites you more than Linehan though? Shanahan is obviously just a pipe dream. Not many names have been kicked around in rumors, but there also just arent that many names out there that have previous run-heavy OC experience.

by sam23 on Jan 7, 2009 1:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ken Zampese

I don’t know a lot about him, but from what Florida Danny has had to say, he seems like an intriguing option. Although, Barrows indicated he was told Zampese wasn’t on the short list yet.

by Fooch on Jan 7, 2009 1:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If I'm not mistaken...

… Zampese was on Nolan’s list when Turner left, but I don’t know why he wasn’t a candidate last year. There may be some issues between the Bengals and 49ers front offices (for not granting permission to speak with Zampese)?

by sfgfan on Jan 8, 2009 9:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm in your camp on this one

Given their recent history with OC’s what the niners need now is some continuity to that position.So, appointing Linehan as OC gives us the experience needed to help Sing on that side of the ball, knowing that if Linehan goes to a HC position say after 2 seasons we already have his successor there in Rathman.
What is vital to this though is that both Linehan & Rathman’s philosophy on offense has to be the same – singing on the same page so to speak. I guess you guys will be able to answer that one for me.

by Ninerfromacrossthepond on Jan 7, 2009 5:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Mixed feelings

I’ve always like Tom Rathman… I mean what Niners fan doesn’t, but this could be a big risk. Looking at the Lions and Raiders rushing stats, they all increased when Rathman was the RB coach. But how much of that is his doing and how much is the HC/OC/players on the team that had that effect.

I think as a player he has was Sing is looking for, and I think he would bring that toughness and intensity as a coach. From what I’ve read, he’s the PTR type of guy that fits well with what Sing wants. But coming from Walsh’s WCO, would he want to employ or mix in philosophies more in that style of football. Have a smash-mouth football running game, but use the short passing game as a setup for, or counterpart to, the bruising running game, and would Sing go for it.

I think a team with a power running game, that can get the 3.5-4 yards per attempt with easy, while also having that short to mid passing game that the Niners seemed to improve as last season went on, would be a tough combination for teams to stop. A quickstep drop and short pass on first down for a few yards. A run up the middle for a few more and its 3rd and short. You do that all game and then set up the shot down the field.

The problem with Rathman that scares the crap out of me is a repeat of Hostler. He may be great at coaching RBs, but the whole offense, game planning, game management, are all different skills then just coaching a position that he may not have and will struggle picking up. So bringing somebody in for a year or two as OC and having Rathman sitting behind him as RB Coach/Assistant OC would probably be best.

But for that to work you would need an OC with a similar offensive style so as not to change thigs too much again. Now I know this is a ridiculous long shot, but maybe bringing in a guy like Shanahan, who we know will want a HC job in the near future, to fill this position would be almost too perfect. Let Rathman learn the ways of the OC through a guy like that, and then have him take over in a year or two. I mean Sing was Assistant HC for Nolan and after a couple of growing pain games, he definitely showed signs of HC material.

Again, Shanahan is probably out of reach for this position, but there has to be someone simlar and also, who knows, maybe an OC stint with his old team is a possibility.

by Sebaz49 on Jan 7, 2009 9:15 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

RE: Power Running Game

If the Niners truly go to a power running style of offense, how big of a need is RB? I have major doubts about Gore being able to shoulder 250 carries a season. I do realize he’s been relatively healthy, less this past season, in the NFL but his past knee surgeries should be a definite concern. I’d prefer to keep his carries in the 180-200 range.

Foster showed some effectiveness last season but I don’t think his style is indicative of “power” running. Is it time to look for a RB in the draft? If so, when? Mid-rounds (3 thru 5)?

by methodrampage on Jan 7, 2009 9:21 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

would you rather get another “power” back or a more elusive guy to be the “lightning” to Gore’s “thunder”? I think we can all pretty much agree another back is needed, but I’m interested what kind of back is most needed. I can see the case for both, and I actually wouldnt mind seeing 2 more solid backs added; one that can provide a change of pace to Gore and one that would be capable of shouldering the bulk of the carries should Gore go down. Of course I also wouldnt want to spend more than a mid-round pick and a few million in free agency to fill the backup RB slots so I dont know how realistic adding 2 guys really is.

by sam23 on Jan 7, 2009 12:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think "change of pace" is overrated.

Typically a “change of pace” back is a guy who’s fast but too small to be a feature back. While maybe those kind of backs are more useful on third downs than your typical “power” back I don’t see them being anymore useful in the grand scheme of things (especially when you’ve got a back like Gore you can more than adequately handle 3rd downs). So, basically, I’d take either, I wouldn’t neccesarilly target one over the other but just the best back available.

by methodrampage on Jan 7, 2009 1:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

yea best back availale I guess, I’m just saying the ability to do different things and give defenses different looks with multiple backs is one of the few ways to make a run-heavy scheme explosive. But then I wouldnt want a Sproles-type forced to shoulder the load if Gore were to go down. Ideally we could find a back who is speedier than Gore but can also run between the tackles. I guess Foster sorta fits that definition………

by sam23 on Jan 7, 2009 9:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The thing that worries me about Rathman is that it seems like he’s been doing this RB coaches thing for a loooong time without any signs of advancement. Wasn’t he the Niners RBs coach for a while something like 10 years ago, or am I just off my rocker here? If I’m right, though, that’s something like a decade plus of coaching halfbacks without ever sniffing a promotion. Frankly, that worries me…

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jan 7, 2009 9:30 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

RB Coach

According to the Raiders website, he was 49ers RB coach from 1997-2002 and Lions RB coach from 2003-2005, before serving in the same capacity in Oakland since then. You’re right though in that it does make you wonder.

by Fooch on Jan 7, 2009 9:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Will Davis let him go?

The first question, if the 49ers are interested, would actually be: “Would Al Davis actually let Rathman go?”

Being under contract, the Raiders would have to grant him permission to interview for any job other than HC.

by sfgfan on Jan 7, 2009 9:54 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Under contract?

I may be wrong but I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that his contract is up this year.

by Sebaz49 on Jan 7, 2009 10:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

According to SFGate:

Though Singletary said he preferred a coordinator with previous experience in that role, he might give some thought to former 49ers fullback Tom Rathman, currently running backs coach for the Raiders. Rathman’s contract in Oakland is up Tuesday.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/06/SPDI154P48.DTL

by Sebaz49 on Jan 7, 2009 10:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My mistake.

I could have sworn I read someone reporting he was under contract. In any case, my fault.

According to Matt Maiocco, he just interviewed for the RB coach job today. He met with McCloughan and Singletary.

by sfgfan on Jan 7, 2009 11:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

nice, glad to see that Singletary and McCloughan probably dont believe that a few late season wins means Singletary is ready to run the ship with a rookie OC by his side.

by sam23 on Jan 7, 2009 1:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I said it once, and I'll say it again...

The 49ers are hoping Turner gets canned in SD. Maybe because they still have hope in Alex Smith.

by drummer on Jan 7, 2009 11:17 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Seriously, what would be the basis of SD firing Norv Turner?

Winning their division two years in a row? Advancing to at least the divisional round of the playoffs by winning at least one playoff game each of the two years? Right now, Norv’s got 3 playoff wins (could be more) in two years. How does one fire him for that?

by methodrampage on Jan 7, 2009 11:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm goona copy and past a response to a prior post ...

With the rumors of Shanahan secretly wanting that job, and what they did with Schottenheimer, anything can happen there, especially since the Bolts have really underachieved (they were considered one of the most talented teams in the League when Turner took over, and Super Bowl contenders, prior to injuries), and if it wasn’t for a Shanahan slide (ironically), they would have not made the playoffs. The last game saved Turner for one more game, and it remains to bee seen if A.J. Smith sees the glass half full, or half empty with Turner. But my point is that the 49ers would rather return to the Status Quo before Hostler (which should have gotten Nolan fired), and that they still think they have a chance with Alex Smith again.

by drummer on Jan 7, 2009 11:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Turner and Smith

The two of them are supposedly good friends. I think that’s where the difference between Shottenheimer and Turner are. Marty couldn’t win in the playoffs, Turner has shown he can. Marty had a falling out with the front office of sorts. There’s no indication that Turner is risking his job in that manner.

It’s highly unlikely Turner gets fired. If he does, he’s done nothing the last two years but show the league he can still be a head coach, why would he want to be a coordinator again?

by sfgfan on Jan 7, 2009 11:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Scott lost both co-ordinators at the end of his last season...

and Smith didn’t want Schott to bring in his son. It was a power move, nothing more. MS lost to the Patriots his last year. Turner would have fared no better. He lost to the Pats year too.

Turner is doing a good job bringing the Bolts back in with late runs in the season, but it all looked lost a few weeks ago. How long before it he gets looked at as a guy who couldn’t get over the hump remains to be seen.

I’m not saying he would return here. I’m saying the 49ers wish he would, and it wasn’t long ago that he was thought of when Martz’s future was up in the air. Again, my point is the 49ers don’t have an idea who they wan’t as OC, and Turner is what the prefer: someone safe and familiar, like Linus’ blanket.

Well, we're waiting....

by drummer on Jan 7, 2009 12:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

by methodrampage on Jan 7, 2009 12:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

How exactly have they underachieved?

Last year they lost to an, at the time, undefeated Patriots team who just about everybody thought was unbeatable. This year, without their best defensive player and with their arguably best offensive player (Tomlinson) banged up for most of the year, the won their division and have advanced to the divisional round of the playoffs. I just don’t see where the underachievement is.

Also, let’s credit Norv’s streak at the end of the season just as much as Shanahan’s slide (let’s no forget that Broncos totally stole a win in their first match-up of the season).

by methodrampage on Jan 7, 2009 12:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The team was 14-2 under MS his last season..

And they were better statistically under MS, and posted better single season records. They went 8-8 this season and 11-5 the season prior. It was good enough to win the crap AFCW, like the Cards were good enough to win their crap division. The difference between those 2 teams was NT had his team playing better late, and the Donks blew the lead for the division. One might consider, if the Bolts lose this game, that they might not have a shot at the Super Bowl again. Turner is a good HC, but not a guy who you think could get take you all the way. That’s the point.

LOL, I’m sure a few 49er fans here said in the past that Turner was a good OC, but not a good HC. Now all of the sudden, he is better than MS?

Well, we're waiting....

by drummer on Jan 7, 2009 12:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

They went 8-8 this season and 11-5 the season prior.

You might have a point here if the Chargers went one and done in the playoffs but since they haven’t they’re regular season record is basically meaningless. They got to the AFC Championship game last year and just beat the Colts. So despite their 8-8 record in a “crap” division they’re now one of the top 4 teams in the AFC (for the 2nd year in a row). Norv has taken the team further than Marty. So yeah, maybe, Norv is a better HC than Marty. At a minimum Norv has have more post season success with the Chargers thanh Marty and has done little to warrant a firing.

The Niners would also prefer Shanahan as a OC but that doesn’t mean it’s worth discussing.

by methodrampage on Jan 7, 2009 12:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What did Turner do in WAS and OAK?...

He only took WAS to the playoffs once in 1999 (and was fired, with MS being WAS HC the next season), and is coaching a former MS team. Sure he has a better playoff record than MS, but not a better overall record in if comparing NT first 5 season in WAs to MS’s first 5 in SD.

I was rooting for the Bolts to win against IND. I knew then that he was one week later as being courted from the 49ers as OC.

Well, we're waiting....

by drummer on Jan 7, 2009 12:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What have you done for me lately?

Look, what Turner did in WAS and OAK might have worked against him in getting the SD job to begin with but he got the job and his present success trumps his past failures.

Whatever Norv did in WAS has little to do with what Marty did in SD.

Ask yourself what’s more important, winning in the regular season or winning in the post season? Once you’re in the playoffs you’re regular season record doesn’t mean crap.

by methodrampage on Jan 7, 2009 1:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Nov. 30th, 2008....

What was the Bolts w-l record that date? Granted, they got hosed on a bad call that cost them a game, but they were 4-8 after that weekend.

Here is who they played in DEC:

OAK
KC
TAM
DEN

Turner’s DEC saved his job against 2 bad teams, and 2 on a slide (TAM will never go anywhere with Garcia @ QB). Granted, he squeaked by IND (turning the ball over at crucial times no less) in the playoffs (with a good coin flip), but playing those 4 teams in DEC favored SD, with 2 games @ home (along with said playoff game at home [against a team they lost @ home in the regular season], thanks to TEN). If you want to blame injuries for SD’s season, well, see: NE, and tell me how that worked out for them.

What have you done for me lately? Take DEC out of the equation, and that’s what you had done.

Well, we're waiting....

by drummer on Jan 7, 2009 1:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but take any success out of the equation and what has anybody done for anybody ever?

I actually think that both of your are overstating your points. method is right that Turner won’t get fired because he’s winning playoff games. But he’s overstating the purity of that sentiment. The truth is that Turner won’t get fired because winning playoff games gives his best buddy A.J. Smith an excuse not to fire him, but not because of the actual merits of winning playoff games. But you’re right that he also does probably deserve to be fired because that team has been criminally bad considering their talent for much of the last two seasons. You’re overstating the idea that just because he deserves to be fired, he probably will be fired. Sure he deserves it, but he still probably won’t get canned.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jan 7, 2009 2:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Criminally bad?

That’s garbage. Criminally bad teams do not make it to the AFC Championship game. As for this season the Chargers have been pretty damn beat up all season long.

by methodrampage on Jan 7, 2009 2:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And they’re still in the playoffs. Criminally bad teams do not win playoff games.

by methodrampage on Jan 7, 2009 2:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I said criminally bad considering their talent, not in a grand sense. That team with those players going 8-8 by the skin of their teeth is terrible.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jan 7, 2009 3:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not saying he should be fired...

My original point was that if he was fired, the 49ers would be all over him for OC, and maybe a reason why they are playing a “wait and see” approach for the position is also predicated on who will be available after the playoffs, with the possibility of Turner being out there. A big reason for my point is more about me being cynical of the 49ers direction than th possibility of Turner’s availability, but I still feel that ScotM wants Alex Smith to return, and Turner produced the results that they liked when he was in SF with Smith and Gore. In other words, Turner is their perfect candidate for the job.

Turner’s HC ability was in a bit of doubt in SD before DEC. Where is stands now is all on where A.J. Smith sees how far he can go with Turner. The Bolts had 3 less regular season wins after Marty (with 2 postseason wins), but 3 less regular season wins the season after (with 1 postseason win thus far). Don’t know if that indicates a trend, but their division’s woe’s helped them out this season.

Well, we're waiting....

by drummer on Jan 7, 2009 2:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ah, in which case I overstated your point, and everything has come full circle.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jan 7, 2009 3:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Take DEC out of the equation?

This is one of the dumbest comments I’ve ever heard. OK, let’s just take out a 1/4 of the season and see if anyone notices. If you somehow magically did take December out of the equatation the playoff picture would look entirely different.

Why take December out of the equation instead of November?

Did the Chargers or Norv get to pick who they got to play the last couple weeks of the season? No. So why should you they played count against them?

If you want to blame injuries for SD’s season, well, see: NE, and tell me how that worked out for them.

Uhh, New England missed the playoffs, San Deigo didn’t. What’s your point?

by methodrampage on Jan 7, 2009 2:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

NE is 11-5...

SD isn’t. If you don’t look at who they played, then you don’t have anything to contribute here.

Well, we're waiting....

by drummer on Jan 7, 2009 2:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

NE is sitting at home watching SD play

It doesn’t matter who they played. San Diego made the playoffs and beat the Colts to advance. New England lost a divisional title and missed the playoffs to a team that just got bumped from the playoffs.

by methodrampage on Jan 7, 2009 5:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

NE...

Played 6 regular season games against playoff bound teams (2 against 11-5 division winner MIA) and went 2-4 against those teams.

SD played 5 regular season games against playoff bound teams, and went 0-5 against them.

Both teams had injuries to starters, yes, those franchise ones too.

BTW:

AFCE-

MIA 11-5
NE 11-5
NYJ 9-7
BUF 7-9

AFCW-

SD 8-8
DEN 8-8
OAK 5-11
KC 2-14

3 of SD’s DEC wins came against AFCW teams to get them to 8-8.

Well, we're waiting....

by drummer on Jan 7, 2009 5:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Miaocco Upate

From the Press Democrat

Former 49ers fullback Tom Rathman interviewed today for the vacant position of 49ers running backs coach, a position he held with the organization under Steve Mariucci from 1997-2002.

by methodrampage on Jan 7, 2009 11:28 AM PST reply actions 0 recs