game reactions thread—CAROLINA

[zn]

InvaderRam wrote:

bradford, mariota, luck, wentz, winston.

Thanks for the report. Glad you got to see them, and sorry it was THAT game you saw. Your post is a good one and I enjoyed it.

But I have to disagree on the “must start rookie qbs” thing. To me, you jump to a lot of conclusions on that issue that don’t hold up.

First off, I submit when you start is no indication at all of your value as a qb. There really is no “how early did he start” metric.

Second off, most 1st round qbs start early because their teams are rebuilding and so they can afford to just live with the losses. AND the majority (a BIG majority) of rookie qbs play on teams that do not win with them as rookies. For example last year the Titans went 3-13 starting Mariota.

And finally, Luck, Wentz, and Winston anyway were all coached up in college pro-style offenses. In fact Luck was considered one of the most pro-ready qbs, ever. It makes a difference.

Either way I say the issue isn’t qb. Keenum was not supposed to be starting with a team that could not run the ball. On top of it, as it happens, you just saw the worst 3 quarters of Keenum since the SF game. The games since have all been close, and win or lose they were close in the first place because the Rams had a passing game (and nothing else on offense) plus, sometimes, a defense. The last 2 years, the Rams are 5-1 when CK has a qb rating of 80 or more, and 1-5 when he has a qb rating of less than 80. But he was never supposed to be all there was to the Rams offense. The bigger issue is the running game.

Like a lot of people who see games live, you went to one of the worst ones to get a realistic picture. You saw them struggle live, that gets burned into the brain, and out of that are drawing conclusions that do not hold up for the bigger picture which includes all games played. For example you say this: “case can’t do much more than what he’s doing which isn’t much.” Well actually, yes, he can do more and HAS. You just saw, as I said, his worst 3 quarters since the SF game. He has done a lot more than that. He was the difference on offense in their wins, and in the close games they lost before this one, he was the only reason on offense they even were close. If you had seen the Tampa or Detroit games live, your idea of what he can do, even without a running game, would be far different, I bet.

To clarify, I am genuinely not on a start Goff/don’t start Goff bandwagon either way. I am fine with it if they start him and fine with it if they don’t. But I don’t believe for a minute that WHEN he starts is any indication at all of his value as a pick. He got picked to play for 10-15 years. Not to be yet another qb who struggles as a rookie starter—and yes, the majority do. Again, BIG majority.

And he’s not ready to play, if in fact he’s not ready to play, because the leap from his college offense to his pro offense is HUGE. So it’s not failure, it’s just the path of development. If when he started really meant something, then, okay; but if he is a good pick it’s going to be because he plays for 10-15 years, as planned, and not because he was (like the vast majority of rookie qbs) struggling as a rookie starter.

That’s my 20 cents anyway.

…

[Billy_T]

The offensive line strikes me as mediocre, which means there is no protective cover for mediocre QB play, or erratic performances by “skill position” guys. And after all the draft picks invested there, that shouldn’t be the case. I’ve long been a Greg Robinson backer, and was happy with the pick when they made it, but I think it’s time to make changes there. Watching him closely, I think it’s clear he doesn’t belong on the left side as a tackle. To me, he’s a natural right tackle or guard. They still need to find their LT.

IMO, Fisher and Snead erred by not drafting O-line prior to the five or six they drafted in one year. It seemed like they panicked. The 2014 draft was pivotal in that regard, as well as the receiver position. It could have set the table for better drafting in 2015, which might have made them less likely to make a (IMO) dumb trade the following year.

Prior to the 2014 draft, I was pushing for Allen Robinson and Trai Turner. How much better might the Rams be today if they had drafted those two instead of Joyner and Mason?

Of course, with Fisher, who knows if Robinson would ever have developed? But the guy has incredible skills and athleticism, and Turner would have helped their run game especially.

As to Sunday’s game, the Defense gave us a lot of positives, and I think Britt deserves to be re-signed. Gurley flashed a couple of times, but Bennie ran better than TG, from what I could see. Pretty obvious that the Rams are not a “competitive” team at this stage. Sad.

[InvaderRam]

you’re missing the point, zn. if he wasn’t that ready. and you know. i accept that he may not have been. you don’t pick him number one overall.

you definitely don’t trade up for a guy who is that much of a project. that much of a gamble.

also. i’m not saying case is the problem. what i am saying is that case needed the running game to be able to work. everyone knew that. well the running game is shit. so why keep trotting out a qb who is useless without a running game?

it’s not going to get fixed. the running game that is. at this point it’s useless to keep putting out a qb who can’t operate under these conditions. you say you’re comfortable putting goff out if you need to. well at this point that’s what you do. the rams need to find out where he is at this point. even if you have to bench him later you do that. i think eli went through similar struggles and came out fine.

what you don’t do is keep putting out a qb who is ineffective due to the conditions round him.

and again. if goff was so much of a project that you couldn’t put him out there, you don’t select him number one overall. you don’t trade away your future on that big of a risk.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 1 month ago by InvaderRam.

[InvaderRam]

and also, zn. i maintain if the running game is working. then yeah. the dynamic changes, and you keep case in there. let goff learn, and case gives you a chance to win. but the running game isn’t working. that to me is the problem. without that there’s no point in putting keenum out there. it’s not going to work. therefore you put goff in and see what you have. if it doesn’t work, you at least have a better idea of what you have to work on.

[zn]

InvaderRam wrote:

you’re missing the point, zn. if he wasn’t that ready. and you know. i accept that he may not have been. you don’t pick him number one overall.

Sure you do. If you think he is the better 10-15 year qb.

The only metric here that DOESN’T count is the “how did he do in year 1” metric.

How he does as a rookie, starting or not starting, has nothing to do with his longterm value and his value as a pick.

And of course remember, most high-picked qbs start as rookies because the team had no choice.

Most struggle. Only a small percentage haven’t. A team that starts a high-picked rookie qb is doing it, far more often than not, because they are rebuilding, have no choice, and are resigned to living with the losses. They were picking a qb high in the first place not because they traded up, but because they were bad and had to rebuild.

[InvaderRam]

zn wrote:

InvaderRam wrote:

you’re missing the point, zn. if he wasn’t that ready. and you know. i accept that he may not have been. you don’t pick him number one overall.

Sure you do. If you think he is the better 10-15 year qb.

The only metric here that DOESN’T count is the “how did he do in year 1” metric.

How he does as a rookie, starting or not starting, has nothing to do with his longterm value and his value as a pick.

And of course remember, most high-picked qbs start as rookies because the team had no choice.

Most struggle. Only a small percentage haven’t. A team that starts a high-picked rookie qb is doing it, far more often than not, because they are rebuilding, have no choice, and are resigned to living with the losses. They were picking a qb high in the first place not because they traded up, but because they were bad and had to rebuild.

if he’s that much of a project then i submit you absolutely have no clue if he is the better qb.

you’re just wildly gambling.

wentz and prescott started because they had to.

i get that.

fisher thought he had the luxury of not having to start him. i get that too. i even agreed with it. i thought they’d have the running game to support case and win.

they didn’t. the season is lost. it’s gone. it’s time to move on. we will see if fisher has.

and i’m not actually saying if goff is one way or another. i am saying that IF goff is that much a project you don’t pick him number one.

i don’t think he is. i think either fisher is stubborn. or stupid. or both. he has to realize this season is done.

[InvaderRam]

an aside note. rams made a blunder in extending tavon. if they can cut him, they should. he’s not good enough.

[Billy_T]

zn wrote:

InvaderRam wrote:

you’re missing the point, zn. if he wasn’t that ready. and you know. i accept that he may not have been. you don’t pick him number one overall.

Sure you do. If you think he is the better 10-15 year qb.

The only metric here that DOESN’T count is the “how did he do in year 1” metric.

How he does as a rookie, starting or not starting, has nothing to do with his longterm value and his value as a pick.

And of course remember, most high-picked qbs start as rookies because the team had no choice.

Most struggle. Only a small percentage haven’t. A team that starts a high-picked rookie qb is doing it, far more often than not, because they are rebuilding, have no choice, and are resigned to living with the losses. They were picking a qb high in the first place not because they traded up, but because they were bad and had to rebuild.

ZN,

IMO, the Rams fall into the category of rebuilding, and being bad. From where I sit, the trade was really, really dumb because they didn’t have the talent base to put all eggs in that one basket. A major trade up, mortgaging the team’s future, makes sense when a team is a piece or two away. That’s not the Rams. They still desperately need to build the team, and the best way to do that, especially with a salary cap, is through the draft. Good drafting gets you a window of time with relatively good contracts for three to five year periods. FA, as you know, tends to require huge contracts if you’re looking for talent. Backups is a different story. But if a team wants to upgrade its talent through FA, it almost always has to pay big time for it.

So I’m a big fan of doing that through the draft. With few exceptions, I’m always going to be against trading away multiple picks for one guy, but love when the Rams can pull off the opposite.

To make a long story shorter, I think it’s time to play Goff and get him the experience he needs. They shouldn’t waste his rookie season, playing a QB who is gutsy but too limited. This season is basically over for the Rams. It doesn’t have to be over for Goff.

[zn]

Billy_T wrote:

ZN,

IMO, the Rams fall into the category of rebuilding, and being bad. From where I sit, the trade was really, really dumb because they didn’t have the talent base to put all eggs in that one basket. A major trade up, mortgaging the team’s future, makes sense when a team is a piece or two away. That’s not the Rams. They still desperately need to build the team, and the best way to do that, especially with a salary cap, is through the draft. Good drafting gets you a window of time with relatively good contracts for three to five year periods. FA, as you know, tends to require huge contracts if you’re looking for talent. Backups is a different story. But if a team wants to upgrade its talent through FA, it almost always has to pay big time for it.

So I’m a big fan of doing that through the draft. With few exceptions, I’m always going to be against trading away multiple picks for one guy, but love when the Rams can pull off the opposite.

To make a long story shorter, I think it’s time to play Goff and get him the experience he needs. They shouldn’t waste his rookie season, playing a QB who is gutsy but too limited. This season is basically over for the Rams. It doesn’t have to be over for Goff.

Well I don’t agree with the idea that they are rebuilding. Or that they meet that definition. In fact I don’t think it adds up to say that. They are as often as not in games, for example, because they have a developed and experienced defense with a number of key starters who are in their 6th to 3rd years (Johnson, McDonald, Barron, Ogletree, Quinn, Donald, Brockers, Hayes). That is simply not a rebuilding team. That’s an “in their peak-years” defense.

And again–I am neither for nor against starting Goff. Anyone who approaches this discussion with me by trying to argue they SHOULD start Goff is just misreading me. To me it’s 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. So I never argue against it, and I don’t argue for it. For a couple of reasons. First, there is absolutely no evidence of any kind that one of the 2 approaches works better–sitting a rookie qb, starting a rookie qb. Both approaches can work and do work. Often in discussions like this someone personally FAVORS one approach, but since they both can work and have worked, there is really no real-world evidence that one approach is better. Second, I never believe that a qb’s longterm value is measured by when he starts. Third, starting a rookie v. starting a back-up on a team with no running game is (again, I keep using this) 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. The smart veteran can do things the rookie can’t, and Goff can do things Keenum can’t.

If they start Goff I am fine with it. If they don’t start Goff I am fine with it. I hear all the arguments both for starting him and for not starting him, and there’s good stuff in each argument.

What I DON’T buy though is the idea that if he DOESN’T start as a rookie he’s a failure as a pick. I don’t believe that.

In terms of “getting him the experience he needs,” that of course is a valid argument, but then so is the opposite.

There’s 2 approaches and they both can work and have worked.

One is, throw him in to get it all at once—PART ONE: learning pro offense, learning defenses, film study, the entire “unlearn being a rookie” mental and training part of it, AND PART 2: taking live reps and learning from mistakes.

The other is, make that 2 stages. Part one first, and then he makes fewer mistakes when it’s time for part 2.

Both can work and have worked.

So if they start him I am fine, if they don’t I am fine. To ME, and please hear this the way I mean it (which is benign), when people argue for one approach or the other, I just see their own personal commitment or investment in THAT approach. They favor it.

I never see that it’s “true” that one approach is better. There is way too much NFL history showing that both can and do work, just for different reasons.
…

[Billy_T]

What I DON’T buy though is the idea that if he DOESN’T start as a rookie he’s a failure as a pick. I don’t believe that.

That’s not my own take. I don’t see Goff as a failure if he doesn’t start. I see it as terrible for his development and a poor strategy for the Rams going forward. As mentioned, I was against the trade pre-draft, and still think it was dumb. But Goff is a Ram now, so I’m definitely pulling for his success as QB. I just think he needs to play to make that happen.

[InvaderRam]

What I DON’T buy though is the idea that if he DOESN’T start as a rookie he’s a failure as a pick. I don’t believe that.

i’m not arguing that. i’m not saying he’s necessarily a bust. i just question the move up mainly. you’re already gambling. but this is just a shot in the dark if he’s that raw.

and again. i don’t think he’s that raw. i think fisher was/is hoping he can turn this around.

no. they’re not turning this around. the season is lost.

Most struggle. Only a small percentage haven’t. A team that starts a high-picked rookie qb is doing it, far more often than not, because they are rebuilding, have no choice, and are resigned to living with the losses. They were picking a qb high in the first place not because they traded up, but because they were bad and had to rebuild.

yeah. we might argue on the definition of rebuild. but this season is lost. starting keenum does nothing because they are not going to win without a running game.

[zn]

InvaderRam wrote:

What I DON’T buy though is the idea that if he DOESN’T start as a rookie he’s a failure as a pick. I don’t believe that.

i’m not arguing that. i’m not saying he’s necessarily a bust. i just question the move up mainly. you’re already gambling. but this is just a shot in the dark if he’s that raw.

and again. i don’t think he’s that raw. i think fisher was/is hoping he can turn this around.

no. they’re not turning this around. the season is lost.

Most struggle. Only a small percentage haven’t. A team that starts a high-picked rookie qb is doing it, far more often than not, because they are rebuilding, have no choice, and are resigned to living with the losses. They were picking a qb high in the first place not because they traded up, but because they were bad and had to rebuild.

yeah. we might argue on the definition of rebuild. but this season is lost. starting keenum does nothing because they are not going to win without a running game.

Well a lot of people do question that.

And for the record I am approaching this discussion not as a herd-board “there can and will be a winner if enough blood gets spilled” style death-match.

I am approaching it as a huddle-board style “informal poll”…it being understood that there will be different takes and we value the conversation more than scoring posting “wins or losses.”

In that spirit, I understand that view–why spend so much? and don’t share it.

My informal poll 2 cents is that it is always worth it to spend that much in a draft to get what you think is the best 10-15 year franchise qb available. From this different perspective, whether or not he starts sooner or later is irrelevant…it’s whether or not he is a franchise 10-15 year qb (which doesn’t mean elite necessarily…for example, Rivers and Eli and Flacco meet that definition but they are not elite. You can win with them and you keep them as starters, and then when your team has enough around him, including a defense, you can do more than just win in the regular season.)

I think Goff WILL BE that so I am fine with the trade.

On the “season is a loss so why not start Goff” argument? I have nothing against that. I would be fine with that. But then I am also fine with the opposite too. That just means I will not argue he MUST start but then am perfectly fine with it if he does. I really do see it as 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. That’s my informal poll 2 cents on that.

….

[Agamemnon]

I am not going to argue for my belief. I have done that already. I will just say, that if you held a gun to my head, I would not trade up into the top half of the first round for any player. There will be times when I have high draft choices anyway. If not, I will use the pile method and use whatever picks I have to draft players until I find one.

Agamemnon

[InvaderRam]

well. we’ve thoroughly beaten that subject to death.

one other thought. i think gurley lost too much weight.

my report on the game isn’t so great i know. i’m not the greatest writer to begin with. couple that with a lack of knowledge about football, and reports would be basically useless.

but gurley looked small. he dropped his weight to 215 pounds. and i don’t think it was good for him. he needs some of that power.

still. he didn’t play all that bad today, but boras abandoned the run too quickly i thought. he was effective at times, and if he had a chance, could have done more damage and taken some pressure off keenum.

of course. i don’t know if keenum audibled out of runs. i have no idea if plays were changed at the line of scrimmage. regardless. gurley not getting the ball more in a game that was so close is crazy to me. the rams best offensive player was taken out of the game. and a lot of it was due simply to the fact that he didn’t even touch the ball.

[zn]

InvaderRam wrote:

my report on the game isn’t so great i know. i’m not the greatest writer to begin with. couple that with a lack of knowledge about football, and reports would be basically useless.

Well on this one I will drop the informal poll bit and just flat tell you you are wrong.

I like your game reports, I think you have a good and distinctive writing style and I always enjoy your posts, and I appreciate your report and glad it contributed to our unique content here.

I just got into the “should Goff start” debate thing.

But that’s not a reflection on your report.

Heck I would trade up for your game reports. I like them. They have a very distinctive voice and flavor. So, thanks.

[Ozoneranger]

I for one hate seeing a rookie QB thrown to the wolves- In game one. But after seeing Keenum blow two TDs- one overthrown, the other rocketed too hard to Kendricks- I’m ready for the rookie for no other reason than to gain experience. He’s going to be the starter next year. The Rams are pretty much out of it now. Why not?

I watched a beaten man in Fisher’s presser. I think he knows what’s coming- the extension was yanked out from under him after losing to a San Francisco team that is historically bad and is now torn up and thrown in the trash.The game has passed him by. Yet, he’s still in denial about Keenum for some reason…

[sanbagger]

Ozoneranger wrote:

one overthrown, the other rocketed too hard to Kendricks-

I’m not surprised by the overthrow…he has had more than 1 of those this year.

I am surprised by your too hard comment. I don’t think that pass was too hard…it should have been caught and completely changed the dynamic of the down the stretch offense.

I’ve watched that replay about 3 times and he just flat misses it….that is not on CK and all on Kendricks IMO.

[InvaderRam]

zn wrote:

InvaderRam wrote:

my report on the game isn’t so great i know. i’m not the greatest writer to begin with. couple that with a lack of knowledge about football, and reports would be basically useless.

Well on this one I will drop the informal poll bit and just flat tell you you are wrong.

I like your game reports, I think you have a good and distinctive writing style and I always enjoy your posts, and I appreciate your report and glad it contributed to our unique content here.

I just got into the “should Goff start” debate thing.

But that’s not a reflection on your report.

Heck I would trade up for your game reports. I like them. They have a very distinctive voice and flavor. So, thanks.

we’re just discussing the team we hold dear.

no problems. i like it. good conversations to be had here.

i will say that keenum got unwarranted jeers from the crowd yesterday. i don’t the know the exact reason they were booing him, but if they actually think starting goff this year will lead to more wins they’re in for a rude awakening.

yesterday. i don’t think keenum played all that bad. he had an int. and he missed a couple guys i think. quick in particular in the first half. but he did enough to win.

gurley not getting enough touches was criminal though, and i put that on the coaching staff. not just boras.

the weather was toasty. getting into and out of the game wasn’t too bad. my friend and i were even able to find free parking about a mile away from the stadium.

but part of that was because not a lot of people went to the game. i actually think the preseason game against kansas city was more packed than the carolina game. i get the sense that the fans are very much wanting to cheer this team on. but they’re frustrated. most of them don’t know the heartache that comes along with being a rams fan. ha!

[zn]

InvaderRam wrote:

we’re just discussing the team we hold dear.

no problems. i like it. good conversations to be had here.

Actually this is a pretty doggone good post-game thread, especially considering it’s the 47th loss in a row.

Can anyone remember them losing this many CLOSE games?

Not this many games. Obviously there’s been that. Though of course 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2011 were worse. But this many CLOSE games?

[Eternal Ramnation]

To me the whole offense is, I don’t even know the word but the opposing defenses know the plays. I don’t know if Keenun is keying them or what but it’s striking how quickly defenses read this offense. Fisher doesn’t want to set Goff up to fail but he has set Gurley up repeatedly. And what happened? This same team’s run game looked unstoppable in the pre-season now it’s near the bottom and we’re healthy , very strange. One thing I do not like is Keenum’s lack of consistency . One play he’s ambidextrous Houdini , the next he’s taking 3rd down sacks for huge losses or throwing wounded ducks into triple coverage

[Billy_T]

Is there a definitive name for the Rams current offense? It’s not like Air Coryell or any of the revisions like Martz’s. I had heard it described as “West Coast” a year or two ago. But, right now, I can’t figure it out from watching the games. It seems not to have any real identity.

Case in point: On one of Keenum’s best passes of the day, he threw to a spot, and Britt caught it near the sidelines. On the replay, you could see CK threw it before Britt made his cut — before he could be sure he was open. In a West Coast offense, with exceptions, the QB throws to the guy who’s open for the best possible gain, with a lot of short passes, typically. Again, with exceptions, it’s not a timing-style passing offense. Air Coryell, also with exceptions, is. But in many other passing downs, I noticed Keenum throwing to the open player — or at least trying to.

Anyone know exactly what kind of offense they’re supposed to be playing?

[zn]

Billy_T wrote:

It’s not like Air Coryell or any of the revisions like Martz’s.

Yeah it’s a multi-tinkered with variation but its roots are Coryell.

[Billy_T]

zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

It’s not like Air Coryell or any of the revisions like Martz’s.

Yeah it’s a multi-tinkered with variation but its roots are Coryell.

Weird. It just doesn’t look like it could come from the Coryell tree. Perhaps because it’s usually a mess? Lots of pivot points that might be “blamed” for that, from coaching, staff, to players, obviously. Holistically as well. But it seems like it has zero in common with the old Dan Fouts/Coryell offenses, or the GSOT Rams.

[zn]

Billy_T wrote:

zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

It’s not like Air Coryell or any of the revisions like Martz’s.

Yeah it’s a multi-tinkered with variation but its roots are Coryell.

Weird. It just doesn’t look like it could come from the Coryell tree. Perhaps because it’s usually a mess? Lots of pivot points that might be “blamed” for that, from coaching, staff, to players, obviously. Holistically as well. But it seems like it has zero in common with the old Dan Fouts/Coryell offenses, or the GSOT Rams.

We’re just seeing it differently. To me it looks Coryell. Remember, the Fouts and Martz versions were just branches. There’s also other branches—the Johnson/Turner/Aikman Dallas version and the Gibbs/Washington version and the Vermeil/Saunders/Kansas City version. Heck before Martz arrived Vermeil/Rhome were running a Coryell system variant. Coryell offenses are as diverse as WCOs are now.

I don’t think it looks like a mess, at the system level. I think they look like they have various kinds of execution issues.

Look at the Tavon catch for 17 at 1:17 left in the 3rd (thrown from Rams 23). The ball is in the air before Tavon even makes his break. CK threw to a spot. So there’s a lot of that in there.

[Billy_T]

zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

It’s not like Air Coryell or any of the revisions like Martz’s.

Yeah it’s a multi-tinkered with variation but its roots are Coryell.

Weird. It just doesn’t look like it could come from the Coryell tree. Perhaps because it’s usually a mess? Lots of pivot points that might be “blamed” for that, from coaching, staff, to players, obviously. Holistically as well. But it seems like it has zero in common with the old Dan Fouts/Coryell offenses, or the GSOT Rams.

We’re just seeing it differently. To me it looks Coryell. Remember, the Fouts and Martz versions were just branches. There’s also other branches—the Johnson/Turner/Aikman Dallas version and the Gibbs/Washington version and the Vermeil/Saunders/Kansas City version. Heck before Martz arrived Vermeil/Rhome were running a Coryell system variant. Coryell offenses are as diverse as WCOs are now.

I don’t think it looks like a mess, at the system level. I think they look like they have various kinds of execution issues.

Look at the Tavon catch for 17 at 1:17 left in the 3rd (thrown from Rams 23). The ball is in the air before Tavon even makes his break. CK threw to a spot. So there’s a lot of that in there.

The Tavon catch. I might have mixed that up when I said Britt. But that’s the one I was talking about. Yeah, that one looked like some variant of Air Coryell, as did the missed catch by Kendricks. Keenum heaved that one before Kendricks got to his spot and turned around. To me, it looked like LK wasn’t ready for it. It didn’t look like WCO because CK threw it before he was open, expecting him to be there and ready.

One big aspect that made the GSOT so great was Warner/Bulger leading receivers for maximized RAC. I see very little of that from this particular offense. Not only did Warner/Bulger throw to spots, they took it further by leading receivers to enable greater yardage after the catch. The Rams’ current version just seems to lack an identity, a coherent strategy or purpose overall. When it is successful, it just doesn’t seem like it’s a part of a continuous process, or a greater whole. Maybe it was just an illusion that the GSOT years gave me that sense. But they did.

I miss the hell out of that.

[zn]

Billy_T wrote:

One big aspect that made the GSOT so great was Warner/Bulger leading receivers for maximized RAC. I see very little of that from this particular offense. Not only did Warner/Bulger throw to spots, they took it further by leading receivers to enable greater yardage after the catch. The Rams’ current version just seems to lack an identity, a coherent strategy or purpose overall. When it is successful, it just doesn’t seem like it’s a part of a continuous process, or a greater whole. Maybe it was just an illusion that the GSOT years gave me that sense. But they did.

I miss the hell out of that.

To me, that was just Warner. It wasn’t a “system” thing, it was just Warner. And of course he had vastly superior receivers. With the Giants, with a ragged OL and not anything near the same in terms of receivers, Warner looked more ragged too.

I don’t see the Rams as “lacking identity,” I see them as having execution issues. To me this is all just this—when teams lose we can point to a 1000 things that look wrong, when they win we don’t examine it as closely.

So to me what you just described is a team that’s ragged and inconsistent in execution.

Meanwhile I bet if I put up the vid of CK’s 19 straight completions against the Lions, it would seem like they’re just fine at the system level.

So I just see execution issues. I don’t think it goes any deeper or further than that.

The GSOT was a rare type of offense, an exception, and not a standard IMO.
…

[sanbagger]

zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

It’s not like Air Coryell or any of the revisions like Martz’s.

Yeah it’s a multi-tinkered with variation but its roots are Coryell.

They also brought in Groh to tinker with the passing game and he gets his roots from Adam Gase who got his roots from Bill Walsh….definitely a variation of a West Coast offense.

I agree it is a multi-tinkered system. As it gets passed down the system changes.

I actually like the changes I’ve seen and have attributed them directly to Groh.

[Zooey]

Well, I want a GSOT offense combined with the Rams’ 1970s Rams defense.

[Author]

Posts