A little more discussion on Mark Roman

by Fooch on Feb 5, 2009 11:00 AM PST in News Comment 15 comments

There has been plenty of discussion here about Mark Roman and how quickly people would like to be rid of him as the starting free safety. He was kind of the fall guy for a secondary that seemed a bit inconsistent at times. Throw in a lack of big plays on his part and it's easy to see how he became said fall guy.

Late Tuesday night Maiocco posted a column about the free agency situations of the rest of the NFC West. At the very end, he threw in a quick little discussion about Mark Roman that piqued my interest. He provided some stats and commentary that might cause some folks to at least re-assess their thoughts on Mark Roman. He mentioned that it's easy to remember the bad when there aren't good big plays to offset that. Additionally, he pointed something out:

The 49ers surrendered 33 pass plays of 20 yards or more this season. The 49ers were tied for second in the league in that category for the fewest "explosive plays" given up. The club ranked 29th in the league in 2007 and tied for 21st in 2006.

It would've been impossible for the 49ers' pass defense to fare that well without Roman doing his job more often than not.

I haven't done any additional research to make better sense of this so I'll open it up to the masses. Was it a matter of just getting eaten up in the shorter plays? If they're giving up a whole ton of 10-19 yard pass plays that's certainly not a good thing. It's something I'll try and do some more research on because it seems like it'd be useful to know.

In the meantime, does this affect your thoughts on Mark Roman and/or the secondary in general?

0 recs | Comment 15 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

There were some pretty intelligent comments

on why Maiocco is looking at it too vaguely.
I suggest you guys click the link and scroll down.

MURS for President!!!!!!!

by jtoj on Feb 5, 2009 12:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Long pass plays

are only one metric of success passing. If a defense often plays their CBs way off receivers at the line, that team may not give up as many deep passes, but will give up lots of first downs in front of the DBs. Sound familiar?

by Grumpy Guy on Feb 5, 2009 1:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Or to put it another way

With better deep help from better safeties… you don’t need to play way off, and can press the WRs more at the line.

by Grumpy Guy on Feb 5, 2009 1:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Roman

From what I’ve read, Roman is a pretty good field general for defense. He has solid recognition skills and gets the D in place… or what ever he does thanks to that little green dot. And yes this is important, and overall the DBs are solid.

But he doesn’t have the physical tools to be anything special. And his post snap reads and recognition might not be great. Because to me a lack of good plays and numerous bad plays doesn’t say he did a good job. It means he’s decent at best. And with the likes of Clements, Harris and Lewis back there, I think more often then not their play helps make him look better.

Come to think of it, usually when the DBs look bad, its when a corner gets beat and the over the top help that Roman was supposed to provide wasn’t there. I think Maiocco is really grasping at straws here.

I say throw him under the bus. Go for Atogwe. If that doesn’t work, draft a FS (Rashad Johnson if he’s still around in the 2nd would be nice). If we can’t get a good FS in the draft, move Harris to FS and start Tarell Brown. If that’s not feasible, give Goldston a shot… he’s gotta be better than Roman, I don’t care what anyone says. And I don’t care you our FS is, as long as its not Roman.

by Sebaz49 on Feb 5, 2009 2:50 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

grrr.. proof reading helps

And I don’t care who our FS is, as long as its not Roman.

who.. you… i guess that’s a understandable mistake… right, I mean, the letters are right there… next to each other on the keyboard…

by Sebaz49 on Feb 5, 2009 2:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh and a fun little fact

Clements has as many touchdowns off of INTs as Roman has picks, in about as many games.

by Sebaz49 on Feb 5, 2009 3:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Goldson

It’ll be interesting to see what Singletary thinks of Goldson. He could hardly get on the field even when he was healthy. Guys like Donald Strickland and Keith Lewis hit the field before he did. Fans can clamor for a guy all they want, but it seems the coaches aren’t liking what they see in Goldson, at least so far.

by sfgfan on Feb 5, 2009 4:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That's why

I put him at the bottom of that list. Again he’s one of those you hear good things about in training camp, and then the regular season comes and nothing. So I’m not saying he’s the answer, but he’s gotta be better.

by Sebaz49 on Feb 5, 2009 6:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Contradictory

You’re saying Goldson is a potential replacement and that he should be better than Roman. I point out that the coaching staff doesn’t think so. You say that’s why you put him at the bottom of the list, but you still insist he’s a better option.

Naturally, I’ll continue to assert that the coaching staff didn’t seem to think so.

by sfgfan on Feb 6, 2009 9:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

The issue is that Roman was a Nolan guy. And we all know Nolan’s tendency to start older vets over possible up and comers. Now, Goldson got hurt somewhere around Nolan’s last game. And didn’t come back from the injury till the end of the season, if I remember correctly. If he hadn’t gotten injured, who knows what Sing would’ve done.

I’m just saying, we keep hearing good things about him, and you can’t use who Nolan put out onto the field as an indicator of who the better player is.

by Sebaz49 on Feb 6, 2009 9:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That's the thing.

He came back for at least the last two games. What, Singletary and Manusky wanted to save him for this year in a season with a lost cause? They played Donald Strickland as the extra DB over all their other DBs. Heck, when Roman AND Michael Lewis were both hurt for a series or so, we saw Strickland and Keith Lewis when everyone thought that Goldson would come in.

The coaching staff, Singletary’s included, seem to dislike something in his game. That may change this year, but I wouldn’t just go and say that he’s definitely better than Roman.

by sfgfan on Feb 6, 2009 11:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I've digressed

into defending Goldson. The original point was, Roman sucks, we need an upgrade, and that anybody (hyperbole… I believe that’s the right literary term for what I’m doing) is better than him, including my grandmother. See what I did there? I don’t really think my grandmother is better than Roman… or that she can play football for that matter, but by exaggerating who can actually step in and be better, it emphisizes my point that Roman is not good.

Now I started defending Goldson because I do not trust who the team put out onto the field recently as being the better player due to Nolan’s favoritism. And to your point about the last game or two, do you really put in a guy who’s been injured for 7-8 weeks and saw very limited time when he was healthy? And I wouldn’t call the season a lost cause for Singletary, he was still auditioning for the headcoaching job.

by Sebaz49 on Feb 6, 2009 12:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Auditioning or not...

… I think showing that you’re open to playing the younger players (especially when it didn’t really count in the grand scheme of things) would have helped his cause just as much as winning did.

by sfgfan on Feb 6, 2009 1:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Agree

Agreeing with this guy. Roman is smart, but he just can’t play the game. He doesn’t get a ton of tackles, he can’t get ints, he misses coverage. He just doesn’t have the football skills. Remember him losing contain in that Redskins game? He’s a terrible safety and he always has been a terrible safety. We absolutely need to replace him. Seriously. With anyone. Anyone at all. Put Singletary out there, we’ll do better.

by J. Frank Parnell on Feb 5, 2009 5:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll trade a few 20+ pass plays...

for a f$%&ing interception more than once every 2 years.

The 20+ pass is something that hurts you, but also something that you can recover from. The defensive interception, however, can be a real back-breaker. Our defense has lacked these game-changing plays for a couple years, now. If we’re going to build a franchise based on strong defenses and power running, we may have to sacrifice a few big plays for turnovers and big hits.

Personally, I expect at least 6 picks and 2 fumbles forced in a season out of the free safety position. Roman doesn’t seem to be able to do that.

by shlecko on Feb 5, 2009 5:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs