Killer, back-breaking, TD-returns

that and the niners are falling apart.

Um, the failures of the defensive unit last year were NOT just about big plays. They just weren’t.

Yeah…we know.

But even with the other issues, subtract the bonehead big plays and they still win more games.

Herzog wrote:

I am much more “have to seem em first before I can say.”

Though in principle, I have nothing against young, healthy, big, heavy maulers on the OL.

Not so much for dentists.

.

You know I’m a dentist right? Everyone hates us

I don’t hate dentists. In fact, I think my own dentist is great. My joke was, I don’t mind big heavy maulers on the OL, just not as dentists. You too I would imagine. I doubt you would want your dentist to be a big mauler.

Though a dentist who liked Mahler? That’s a different issue.

..

wv wrote:

If they only eliminate the big melt-down plays, i think they can get three or four more wins.

Now, to be a real threat to win it all ? — Sure they’d have CONSISTENTLY stop the run, etc, and so forth.

So, I doubt we really disagree on this.

Well, that’s interesting. Perhaps we don’t disagree.

It’s good to hear acknowledgements of the problems beyond big plays. I guess I’d suggest that …

First, big plays have a way of arising FROM more systemic problems. Are the big plays isolated or are they symptoms of deeper problems. I’d tend to lean toward the the latter.

Second, I am skeptical of the notion that changing a play or two will alter a result. Of course, a big play at the end of the game with no time left can be decisive. But I am very skeptical that reversing a bad big play early in a game can turn an L into a W.

Consider the SF game when we gave up the bomb before the half. The play was a turning point, no doubt. But the fact that 1 1st half play which left us still in the lead (if I recall correctly) killed us–a fact none of us denies–is only possible if a team is really, really vulnerable in all sorts of ways that are systemic. And those systemic weaknesses are still there, whether or not the big play happens. Suppose that play didn’t occur, but SF moved the ball and got a FG. They get a bit of momentum, albeit less dramatically, we lose it, and the 2nd half is still a disaster. Could that have happened?

Sure. Notice, I am not arguing it WOULD have happened. It might not have. But it’s the sort of thing that unsound teams experience all the time. Who knows?

I am just saying I am skeptical of looking at a game, taking out a big play, and deciding what the results woulda been. That just seems pretty questionable.

What I would RATHER talk about is changing the soundness of our units’ performances. Soundness. Not perfection. Not necessarily being elite. Just playing tough, sound, competitive football. I find it much more likely that that change would lead to more wins than a hope that we avoid bad big plays. I would personally prefer a discussion on those levels. I’d like to see the board discuss, “what are the odds that the defense can learn to A) defend the run soundly and consistently, B) challenge opposition receivers enough to give our pass rush time to work, and C) get off the field on 3rd downs? Those seem to me more substantive issues on which to consider the odds of improvement.

I guess if there is disagreement, it’s disagreement on where the focus and emphasis of the discussion should be. If that makes any sense.

zn wrote:

It’s good to hear acknowledgements of the problems beyond big plays.

But, no one goes around not acknowledging those other issues. It’s much more the case that we intepret them and their significance differently.

OK, I guess I am confused here.

I see a thread discussing 1 factor. Only 1.

I think A) it’s the wrong single factor, B) it won’t in itself change much and C) the board discussion rarely discusses the issues that I DO think are the keys.

Might others see those factors as well? Sure. I dunno. All I know is what IS actually discussed.

There’s this weird thing here. WV says we don’t disagree. You say everyone sees all of what I am talking about. Yet I can’t, after almost a year of trying, get a discussion going of the stuff that seems to me to be crucial. You say it’s because people see it but interpret differently. OK. But that would make more sense to me if I were seeing a discussion that engaged these things.

Well, whatever. In some weird way, we see the same things and we really don’t, and, at least to me, the differences matter.

rfl wrote:

OK, I guess I am confused here.

I see a thread discussing 1 factor. Only 1.

I had an earlier version of this which I deleted cause it got too wordy and off topic. It even bored me to re-read it.

I was saying that the GENERAL topic of the 2014 defense has come up and people have come up with their own takes (so far). We all agree that the defense was inconsistent, and lacked discipline at times…though not everyone agreed on why that was, or the extent of it, or what caused it.

In this thread, I post something I really do believe—cut out the bonehead coverage errors and they win more games. That is part of it for me, and it came up in a thread about eliminating bonehead errors.

To me the differences about the causes etc. don’t matter because it’s conversation among old friends about something that is just going to inherently attract different views. I don’t think referencing one aspect of their problems here—one that particularly irked me—means anything. The fact that we didn’t always agree on the causes for the defensive inconsistency didn’t mean much to me either…I thought it was good conversation. The topic of the defense in general, and what was wrong with it and what was right, and the reasons for it, will no doubt come up again. Events on the field will bring it up again, if something else doesn’t before that.

Mistakes can be divided into two categories. The big mistakes that kill you and the mistakes that happen over and over again and kill you. I think it would be easier to correct the reoccurring mistakes, unless the same big mistakes are reoccurring. 😉

interestingly enough if you click on that link. there’s a category called “VAR” which measures variance. the rams? ranked 32nd in that category. the LEAST consistent defense in the nfl.

that’s their biggest problem right there. they’re young though. and they’re FINALLY in the same system for the second year in a row. i don’t take that lightly. maybe it’s not a big deal. i think it’s a big deal though.

wv wrote:

The 49ers had the next biggest variance, and then the Colts.

As a moderator, I am forced to reprimand you for faulty chart reading.

The next biggest was the Bengals. Then SF, then the Colts.

Where did you get your football metric chart reading skills, a cracker jack box?

BTW here’s how many top 10 defenses the Rams played in 2014: Seattle, Seattle, SF, SF, Denver, Phil. They won half those games.

wv wrote:

Well in general would you agree that GW runs a very ‘risky’ defense? High risk high reward — that kind of system?

People have said that for a long time about GW defenses. But then he has orchestrated a few top 5 defenses. One thing I liked about last year is that minus the coverage mistakes that led to Big Boneheaded Passing TDS (BBPTD) the safety play was good as anything we have seen in years.

Agamemnon wrote:

I think it is more high risk medium reward. I think he takes unnecessary risks. I think the Rams were second on percentage of blitzes. I don’t think it is the best strategy to do that when you can generate the pass rush we can with just our front four. He could get almost the same effect by faking the blitz. imo

I believe in being aggressive. But,I don’t like to make plays that can lose the game but not win it. I think this is the type of mistake that Williams tends to make.

Well said.

As I’ve said before, Williams commented when he first arrived about the Rams having more firepower up front than he’d ever had before. He said something–can’t remember what–about how he’d need to adjust.

He didn’t. In fact, the defense he took over with a feared front 4 coming off an impressive number of sacks the year before, set an NFL record for fewest sacks over the first quarter of the season. To me, that adds up to a historically poor job of a new DC ruining the team’s best asset. In the public eye–pundits and fans–he largely got away with it. Very little effort to hold him responsible. At the same time that Schotty was being widely blamed for a struggling offense playing with marginal talent at QB and a lousy OL.

I wholly agree that GW takes unnecessary risks. I agree that there is a difference between sound and reckless aggressiveness. As I’ve pointed out before–the AZ DC, who I think might have moved on?–is very aggressive with his blitzes. But he covers up behind them and always runs a sound defense. The difference between his soundness and GW’s rashness seemed to me to be very evident in our games with AZ last year.

Anyway, to return to the original subject, I think that big play concessions are closely related to general system unsoundness. That’s why I tried to push the discussion past that factor.

Of course, the O giving up so many scoring plays … well, what can we say about that? Hope it doesn’t happen again.

Jenkins gambling is a net loss.

rfl wrote:

n other words, he doesn’t really match Williams’ system. Williams apparently wants to play off and contain to facilitate his blitzes. That requires disciplined CBs. JJ is a poor fit for that role.

Unless he learns.

This time last year I was avowing with complete conviction that Quick would never learn…that if he had not done it yet it was not going to happen.

So I don’t promise it but I don’t rule it out.