How do people feel about Foles right now, before anything else happens?

I think Foles will be fine for what the Rams want out of their QB. I’m not really worried about him as long as the o-line get fixed. O-line is the key.

Naturally, I’m in a pessimistic “wait and see.”

I’m looking forward to the pre-season, obviously. I mean…I’ve NEVER seen Foles play. So what the hell do I know? Just what I’ve read.

bnw wrote:

I’m glad not to be wondering how long our QB will play until he is on IR. Foles is a fresh start.

Foles has missed 37% of his capable starts (concussion, broken hand and collar bone) Foles is no Lou Gerhig or Cal Ripken.

I understand the reasoning for the trade (bradford not restructuring salary) thus my gut tells me, Bradford wanted to get out of STL and play in a football city.

IMO Rams still need a QB.

Zooey wrote:

Naturally, I’m in a pessimistic “wait and see.”

I’m looking forward to the pre-season, obviously. I mean…I’ve NEVER seen Foles play. So what the hell do I know? Just what I’ve read.

i’m in a cautiously optimistic wait and see.

i think we’ll see a foles closer to the 2013 foles.

but what are the rams going to do to help him get back to that “2013 foles”? oline is still worse than it was last year. yikes! i also feel like they need to add one more skill position player on offense.

also. foles has some injury concerns of his own.

and then also. what happens after this season? if he plays well, rams are gonna have to shell out big bucks just to keep him. or is there a larger plan? do they draft a qb this year with the intention of developing him for the future?

• This reply was modified 9 years, 8 months ago by InvaderRam.
• This reply was modified 9 years, 8 months ago by InvaderRam.

wv wrote:

< Drafting young and healthy OLinemen
is a different approach than signing guys like Jake Long….

Not if you want to work out your medical staff.

Yeah, I’m optimistic about Foles. If he starts and wins one game, that’s more games than Bradford won last year.

So again, it’s another low bar to clear for us Rams fans! Woohoo!

wv wrote:

This little board is always more of a ‘wait and see’ board.

This is the ‘nice’ board. We’re nice. Except for Ag.

w
v

w
v ate all the cake and there is none left.

As it stands right now I have my doubts that Foles is the long term answer. I like a healthy Bradford (does such a person even exist?) better. My concerns about Foles are based mostly on the current state of the Rams oline. I can’t reach a state of cautious optimism about Foles until I’ve reached a state of equanimity about the oline.

rfl wrote:

I think his record indicates that, under good conditions, he CAN light it up. He has that in him.

With a poor OL, however, indications are that Foles would struggle worse than many.

And here we sit, waiting on the OL. That is pretty much what our whole board is doing. And I think we all understand that, until the OL situation breaks one way or the other, we won’t know much.

And so, one would hope, that if all things in the universe align correctly, Snish sees and understands that more so than we.

And will act accordingly.

I hate everything

zn wrote:

PA Ram wrote:

The expectations for Foles have to be realistic. He is not, never was and never will be Aaron Rodgers.

You know one difference that favors Foles?

Foles: 5 game winning drives/combacks in 24 starts. 20.8%

Rodgers: 12 game winning drives/combacks in 103 starts. 11.6%

That’s in a lot of ways a fake stat…numbers of games in this category is not really as important as percentage. That is, how often does the team win when the qb is in that situation.

But, Rodgers famously has a low-ish percentage when it comes to that.

..

Well we are gonna find out pretty quickly if Foles is clutch
or not, cause i strongly suspect a lot of these NFC West
games are gonna be close, hard-fought struggles. One would
think the Rams Defense will keep them close.

Foles will have his chances to show his poise
and clutch-ness.

w
v

PA Ram wrote:

First of all, this is not a team built around the QB.

Hmmmmm. I wonder about this, Man. In fact, I think it’s an error.

Fisher’s pre-Rams track record says that he builds a team around defense and rushing the football. Not the QB. Now, let’s set aside the issue of how he achieved his best results with a really good QB.

I guess I would suggest that Fisher’s record with the Rams challenges this common assumption.

The simple fact is that our offense has for 3 years been dependent on and limited by QB play. Zack S. had a couple dominant games in ’13, but their commitment to him has been slow to develop, spotty, and short-lived. Mason has shown even greater potential, but has been little utilized. Most of our successful games have come from passing, and, to my eye, Schotty turned first to the passing game and only reluctantly to the run. I think the facts of performance oppose the common assumption that Fisher runs a power running game.

Of course, personnel has been an issue. And Snead has supported Fisher in spending FA $ and draft picks on the OL. The results are what we all know them to be. Lots of misses and few hits on the OL, with 3 good RBs drafted.

OK, so one might say, “Well, the FO has missed on some OL prospects, but they’ll keep going until they get it right. Then we’ll see the ‘REAL’ Fisher offense/team, develop.”

The problem with this view again lies in the record. The WV postulate–that they know everything rides on the OL and will commit to solving it–is not playing out so far. Snead has made several substantive moves this off season. Only 1 has involved the OL, and that was for a guy projected as a BUP. The biggest FA acquisitions have been at SAM and DT. The THEORY is that they are trying to play the market shrewdly, but this is a risky strategy if you rate the value of the OL as highly as WV and most of us do.

And, see, very theme of this thread argues against PA’s assumption. It’s hard to argue that the team is built around a QB when by far the most substantive move made by the FO this off-season has been … the acquisition of a new QB. Values are expressed in actions. We swapped QBs and gained some cap room. Now, had we then gone out and spent that cap room on the OL, one could support the idea that QB is not central to what we are doing. We have not done that. We may STILL spend cap on the OL, but, again, we are risking the “big 3” OL FA’s signing elsewhere. You don’t do that if the OL and running game are more central to your thinking than the QB is.

I always think it’s important to ask, “What do the actions tell us?” To me, the actions and results of this FO tell me the following:

1. Fisher famously came here figuring QB was a variable he didn’t have to worry about as he built the roster. Sam’s injuries upset this assumption and led to a swap for a “healthier” option.

2. The FO has learned bitter lessons here about acquiring OL talent. Wasted $ and draft picks have led to very disappointing results. They don’t want to waste resources again.

3. They have decided that they can get the same, mediocre results they have recently gotten with less $ and lower draft picks.

4. Meanwhile, they are committing resources to already good units that they feel more confident in supporting: DT, LB, DB, etc. They’d rather have a surpassing defense and a mediocre OL than a pretty good OL and defense.

5. They believe that pretty good QBing can cover for a mediocre OL more easily than they can develop a dominant running game. It’s really HARD in today’s NFL to run the ball consistently. They feel that a healthy, good QB can toss the ball to a reasonably talented receiver corps even if the “power running game” never truly emerges.

If my reading is at all correct, it means, first, that this team is being built on A) the hope of a Top 5 defense and B) a decent QB’s ability to cover OL limitations with a quick-passing game.

This would, of course, go against all the problems we observe and against common assumptions about who Fisher is. (I keep arguing that Snead and Fish are distinct, but as long as Fish has the bigger name, he’ll be identified with the team’s approach.) We can kvetch all we want, but I would argue that this sort of approach actually stays the course with what they’ve been doing.

And IF this is our trajectory, then we could make predictions:

* They’ll sign FA OL at bargain prices and believe Boudreaux can coax tolerable performances with them and developing youngsters. If they lose out on Joe B. Wis, and … the other guy, they’ll figure, “Well, OK, we’ll make the dregs work.”

* They’ll similarly pick up “bargain” OL in the draft. Robbie didn’t instantly solve their OL problem, and the above would suggest that they won’t draft OL in the 1st again. I am becoming increasingly expectant that they’ll go to another position at #10–maybe on defense!

* They will NOT develop the mythic Fisher power running game this year. They’ll get value out of Mason and Cunningham, but they will pass a lot. They’ll look for ways to complete passes over a mediocre OL … the SEA model.

* The OL will remain mediocre this year, except perhaps for Robbie developing and Saffold remaining healthy.

That’s what I am expecting. I think Fisher is building a far more QB-reliant team than the myth allows people to see.

Will it work? I dunno. It’s scary to me, as risky as what Chip is doing in Philly. We’ll see.

rfl wrote:

…The problem with this view again lies in the record. The WV postulate–that they know everything rides on the OL and will commit to solving it–is not playing out so far. Snead has made several substantive moves this off season. Only 1 has involved the OL, and that was for a guy projected as a BUP. The biggest FA acquisitions have been at SAM and DT. The THEORY is that they are trying to play the market shrewdly, but this is a risky strategy if you rate the value of the OL as highly as WV and most of us do….

Well, we’ll see. It could be they sign Barksdale and Wiznewski
and spend two of the first three picks on the OLine.

I certainly was ‘hoping’ there would be a solid veteran Oline-starter
signed by now. And it aint happened. Yet.

w
v

• This reply was modified 9 years, 7 months ago by wv.

rfl wrote:

wv wrote:

Well, we’ll see. It could be they sign Barksdale and Wiznewski
and spend two of the first three picks on the OLine.

Indeed. And you know I’d be happy.

Remember, I’m just reacting to the comment that the franchise direction is not based on the QB. And to me, the ACTIONS of the group so far indicate that they value the OL–and a true, power running game–less than they do these other resources. Even if they do as you say, they RISKED getting no one very good in a thin FA class for OL. They’ve already risked that.

We’ll see on the draft. As you say. I would love to see us draft Scherf, though people say he’ll be gone. I’d love a true, #10-worthy OL pick.

But I have this sneaking suspicion that that won’t happen.

‘Course, I was way off in my expectations regarding Sam’s fate … so what do I know?

Well…we both know what’s gonna happen
if they ‘dont’ fix the Oline.

And It wont be pretty.

w
v