kwik note: insiders on 2016

sanbagger wrote:

Wow…Saffold saying the scheme was the biggest problem?

Usually players don’t spread the dirt after a change…but….

I think he’s just giving an honest view.

But notice he didn’t say the SCHEME was the biggest problem. He named 2 things–the scheme and lack of commitment. Lack of commitment is aimed at the players not the coaches. And I have to say that the “2 causes” view accords more with how I saw 2016.

Anyway that bit from RS comes from here: http://theramshuddle.com/topic/saffold-chats-on-reddit/

sanbagger wrote:

zn wrote:

But notice he didn’t say the SCHEME was the biggest problem. He named 2 things–

Yea, but….he said scheme and the a lack of commitment. I read that as pretty apparent they didn’t have confidence in the scheme and didn’t commit…..leading it to scheme as the primary issue.

You may have several symptoms but the only way to cure the illness is to get a correct diagnosis and treatment, then all the symptoms go away.

I didn’t read it that way. I read it as naming 2 separate and distinct things. The team as a group were not as involved or committed (and that has been directly said about Gurley) and as a result their performance suffered.

I think their time and focus was sapped by the move, myself.

Anyway I didn’t read it as losing commitment because of the scheme. I read it as both things–scheme, players lack of commitment to football–bringing them down. And btw that corresponds with what I thought I was seeing last year.

..

wv wrote:

And Fisher picked the players that didnt commit. So it ends up back at the coach anyway.

w
v

Partly I mean this, partly I am just going for the obvious jokes, but, that “twist” turns it into something that sounds like a herd debate. “You HAVE TO blame the coach.” “Did you blame the coach enough? You named another factor–does that mean you’re evading blaming the coach? The Committee is interested in your relative degree of coach blame energy…did you name another factor distinct from coaching? Do you perhaps want to think hard about whether you meant to do that?”

I think the coach was obviously part of what happened in 2016, and I have no problem with them moving on. Either way, I was just commenting on what (I think) Saffold actually said. I think he pointed at 2 distinct, co-existing things. I don’t think he said one caused the other. It doesn’t matter to me either way if “all factors go back to Fisher,” or if they don’t.

A LOT happened in 2016. And the result is, they moved on to what looks like a good coach, who inherits a team that has several good young players to build around. That promises to be a good situation for us fans IMO. At least longterm. If he can get Goff going, which I personally am optimistic about.

.

InvaderRam wrote:

brown made similar comments after the season was over.

Can you find Brown’s comments? I would but I don’t know where to start.

If you can’t that’s okay.

.

sanbagger wrote:

zn wrote:

I didn’t read it that way. I read it as naming 2 separate and distinct things. The team as a group were not as involved or committed (and that has been directly said about Gurley) and as a result their performance suffered.

To me committed means buying in the coaches scheme. If the players aren’t buying in it’s hard for them to get motivated.

I guess you could look at it as they half-assed because they weren’t committed individually but it jumped out at me that he meant committed to the overall game plan.

To me it means committed to the program in terms of time spent working on their bodies and their knowledge of the game.

As I said I linked that comment up with other comments such as those made by people who thought Gurley did not put in the time in the 2016 off-season he did in the 2015 off-season, and that as a result he was not physically the same.

I can’t see an entire team getting a new offense in OTAs and deciding then and there that that offense was not worth it. I have never heard of such a thing before. I can see where the move sapped away so much time, and so much coach oversight, that they were not as vigilant putting in the time to prepare for the season and study a new system. I did not see them quitting on the season until very late in the year. I did see a team that began the season as out of sync as I have have ever seen them, and being out of sync means they weren’t as ready as they should be, not that they didn’t buy in to the offense per se.

InvaderRam wrote:

http://www.espn.com/blog/los-angeles-rams/post/_/id/32625/a-look-at-why-todd-gurley-never-ran-free

he talks about it a little. how the rb and ol weren’t on the same page.

Thanks.

2 Brown quotes:

“Man, honestly, that’s a tough question to answer,” Jamon Brown, one of the Rams’ young guards, said while cleaning out his locker Monday. “You can say it’s scheme, you can say it’s players; you can point the finger at anything. But at the end of the day, we just didn’t get it done.”

Brown brought up a disconnect between the running back and the offensive line.

“A lot of times you could see where it just seemed like we were on different pages,” Brown said. “I don’t know if that’s being coached differently. How it’s being conveyed in each room, we don’t know. The big thing is we have to get back on the same page, because when we’re on the same page, we’re pretty damn good.”

InvaderRam wrote:

gurley needs to step up.

I think everyone is assuming he can.

But…hope that’s right.

…