one thing the 2 losses have in common

Recent Forum Topics Forums The Rams Huddle one thing the 2 losses have in common

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #95121
    zn
    Moderator

    It’s not Goff. Goff played well overall against the Saints. He was 28 of 40 for 391 and 3 TDs.

    It’s not Gurley. Gurley played well overall against the Saints. He was getting 5.2 a carry.

    1 thing is, both games were on the road in places known to be challenging for visitors.

    But on top of that–in both games, Donald was relatively quiet. The Saints and Bears handled him with an effective game plan that basically subtracted him.

    #95123
    wv
    Participant

    Oh, i totally agree. Donald is the difference-maker. Especially in the 4th Quarter.

    Which is why, last year, i was expecting every team in the NFC West to pick a Guard with their first pick.

    w
    v

    #95125
    Billy_T
    Participant

    I think it’s tough to try to find a common denominator for the two losses, primarily because the victors are so incredibly different. But, the relatively “quiet” performance of Donald is probably as good as any.

    My thing, however, at this point in the season — and I’ve watched all but one game — is this:

    The Rams are making a huge mistake by keeping to one personnel grouping for the vast majority of their offensive plays. It’s especially a mistake when they face a good to great defense, and that kind of team seems to become even harder to defeat in the playoffs.

    I’ve noticed announcers in pretty much every game — at least until Chicago — rave about the deceptive simplicity of the Rams’ offense. Three wide outs, single back, for more than 90% of the calls. The announcers seem to love this. Me? I hate the simplicity and think it’s a serious mistake.

    IMO, whenever the Rams face a team with a really good pass-rush, and/or one with a great defense overall, they need to change up their personnel groupings. Big time. They also need to do this when it looks like the passing game is being stopped. Go to several other options . . . like, one or two additional O-line guys, two tight ends, a D-line guy as fullback — I’d use a second-stringer for that (Tanzel Smart, perhaps), etc. etc. I’d love to see the Rams stack the line with hogmollies and run Gurley, again and again, then do the play-action, if it makes sense at that point. Set it up. You can’t set up play-action when you’re not running the ball, or can’t, and the Rams oftentimes fail at running the ball because they won’t go away from their three-wideouts.

    They need to show all kinds of different looks to the defense, especially when they face a really good one, or are having trouble offensively for any reason. Change things up, and rely on physics. Mass is likely more effective in moving the defense than skinny wideouts.

    ;>)

    #95126
    Billy_T
    Participant

    Quick follow up . . .

    The above is said with this always in mind: I love the season overall. It’s been amazing to watch them win so many games. It’s incredible to have a seriously good team to root for again, and I’m very, very optimistic about the franchise, its immediate and long-term future.

    Grousing about this and that, even though I sincerely believe I’m correct about remedies, comes with the recognition that the Rams have made one of the greatest turnarounds in NFL history. If it makes any sense for fans to be “proud” of their team and its accomplishments, I am, a thousand-fold.

    #95185
    JackPMiller
    Participant

    We need some more playmakers on defense. The Bears, Cowboys, and Saints, have plenty of playmakers in their front 7. We don’t have that. McVay needs to find a way to combat that.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.