Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › 101, 8/21 … Wagoner, Greg Bishop of S.I., & Frank Wycheck
- This topic has 6 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 3 months ago by
zn.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 21, 2015 at 10:25 pm #29111
znModeratorNick Wagoner
===========
Why does Greg Bishop of S.I. likes the Rams as a Wild Card team coming out of the NFC West? Greg joined Kevin Wheeler to talk about the practices he saw in Oxnard, what he likes about the Rams, the competition in the NFC West, and where the Rams will finish.
===============
Frank Wycheck explains why this year’s Rams team reminds him of his ’99-00 Titans team. Frank joined Kevin Wheeler to preview Rams/Titans, they talked about Coach Fisher’s return, what makes Fish such a respected coach, the Rams turning the corner, and how the Titans dealt with the move from Houston and Fisher’s role in that.
August 22, 2015 at 12:54 pm #29123
rflParticipantWagoner makes the points I am always on about.
This team has a history of displaying problems in P/S, saying they’ll be fixed in the regular season, but having them linger.
He specifically talks about run defense. I’ve been on about that forever.
Unless a team has already established itself as a perennial contender, it will rarely be able to stumble through P/S and then just flip the switch and come out of the gate playing winning football.
If this defense does not start to announce itself during P/S, don’t expect it to be ready for the 1st 1/4 of the season.
By virtue of the absurd ...
August 22, 2015 at 1:36 pm #29124
NERamParticipantIMO, I can’t see why this D should be stumbling at all through the PS.
They pulled it together in the last half of the 2014 season, and played some good football. And, for the most part, this is the same group, ain’t it? Players, DC, scheme???
If there hasn’t been a significant change, I fail to see why this group should be showing any signs of regression. These aren’t 14 year vets, where age might be slowing them down.
A little rust, perhaps, which should be able to be worked off during PS, but definitely not any major issues.
August 22, 2015 at 2:21 pm #29126rflParticipantIMO, I can’t see why this D should be stumbling at all through the PS.
They pulled it together in the last half of the 2014 season, and played some good football. And, for the most part, this is the same group, ain’t it? Players, DC, scheme???
If there hasn’t been a significant change, I fail to see why this group should be showing any signs of regression. These aren’t 14 year vets, where age might be slowing them down.
A little rust, perhaps, which should be able to be worked off during PS, but definitely not any major issues.
Amen. My point exactly. Which is why I believe that the 1st half of the OAK game actually is significant. A supposedly elite defense with all the stability you mention ought to be able to look good against the offense it shut out months ago even without elaborate game planning. I mean, even our 2nd string is experienced and is supposed to be pretty good on its own.
But let’s concede the OAK game. We’d better start seeing something soon. And, I would argue that what we need to see more than anything else is a basic SOUNDNESS in deployment, performance, and competitiveness. I don’t care about the occasional mistake. All good defenses make them. But is it evidently HARD for offenses playing against us? Do they experience genuine pressure? Do they find it HARD to run and HARD to convert on 3rd down?
Elite defenses show all that. If we don’t see, it, then this defense is unlikely to be elite.
Well, I’ve said it a million times. But what you are saying fits with WV’s point about responsibility. If this defense continues to stumble and bumble, then someone is responsible. It will not be ACCEPTABLE.
By virtue of the absurd ...
August 22, 2015 at 3:08 pm #29127znModeratorA supposedly elite defense with all the stability you mention ought to be able to look good against the offense it shut out months ago even without elaborate game planning.
Well as you know I disagree, even given that you also conceded the point just on that one game. For one thing, the issue is not that the Rams didn’t gameplan, it’s that Oakland did. The Raiders, with an upgraded offense over what they had in 2014, designed and rehearsed an attack meant to take on the Rams D (a plan that began it seems with negating Donald). Under any circumstantances that’s an advantage.
I would say the fact that the 1st unit D held Oakland to field goals is a good sign under the circumstances, and was a hint of the D we saw at the end of last year.
August 22, 2015 at 8:23 pm #29141rflParticipantWell as you know I disagree.
I’ll just ask one question.
Do you think that, in general, a football team can play lethargic, sloppy football in the P/S …
And then just flip the switch and play well to start the season?
By virtue of the absurd ...
August 23, 2015 at 12:05 am #29145znModeratorDo you think that, in general, a football team can play lethargic, sloppy football in the P/S …
And then just flip the switch and play well to start the season?
.
No I don’t believe in general that a team can do that. Where we disagree (or so far anyway) is that the first 2 series of the Oakland game represented lazy, lethargic football. Remember D’Marco on the 99 Bux game? Quote: “You can’t ease into a street fight. We did, they didn’t.” Oakland just had the advantage in that situation. They came armed and with detailed terrain maps. I wouldn’t call the Rams unprepared, or lazy, etc, or any of that. I would just call it a clash of 2 different kinds of preparation.
But then contrast that with the Dallas scrimmage. There, both teams had the same level of preparation. Neither had an advantage the way Oakland did. And…the Rams were so intense about it that the Cowboys were taken to task after Monday for not matching that intensity. If I recall even the Dallas coach said something to the team about it.
Or maybe you’re right and Fisher used Oakland as a wake-up call. Who knows.
.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
