La on GW's gameplan for the Steelers

Agamemnon wrote:

Fisher’s style keeps the game close against the good teams and it keeps the games close against the bad teams.

A lot of the time it does that. But then they also held Denver to 7 points. And, mostly, holding a top offense to 12 points is not supposed to lead to a “close game.” The Rams defense held the Seattle offense to 16 points. 16 points is only a close game with this offense.

The interesting thing is that I don’t see the objections leading anywhere.

One objection is, it cuts down on Rams sacks. Rams are tied for 1st in the league in sacks.

Another problem I see with the arguments against the Rams approach is that no one balances it with a list of the drawbacks to press/man coverage. Instead they act like there are no drawbacks and therefore don’t recognize that with defensive systems, you’re choosing your poison.

Another problem I see is that some say the Rams D is predictable. Yet no defense is more routine in its ways than Seattle, and they were #1 last year. Seattle doesn’t fool you, Seattle says here we are try and beat what we do, and then outplays you. It’s talent and execution.

It could actually be that the Wms. defense is a good one and that we’re all complaining for no good reason.

.

zn wrote:

Agamemnon wrote:

Fisher’s style keeps the game close against the good teams and it keeps the games close against the bad teams.

A lot of the time it does that. But then they also held Denver to 7 points. And, mostly, holding a top offense to 12 points is not supposed to lead to a “close game.” The Rams defense held the Seattle offense to 16 points. 16 points is only a close game with this offense.

The interesting thing is that I don’t see the objections leading anywhere.

One objection is, it cuts down on Rams sacks. Rams are tied for 1st in the league in sacks.

Another problem I see with the arguments against the Rams approach is that no one balances it with a list of the drawbacks to press/man coverage. Instead they act like there are no drawbacks and therefore don’t recognize that with defensive systems, you’re choosing your poison.

Another problem I see is that some say the Rams D is predictable. Yet no defense is more routine in its ways than Seattle, and they were #1 last year. Seattle doesn’t fool you, Seattle says here we are try and beat what we do, and then outplays you. It’s talent and execution.

It could actually be that the Wms. defense is a good one and that we’re all complaining for no good reason.

.

I am not talking about the defense specifically. I am talking about the entire philosophy of Fisher’s approach to the game. It brings with it certain pluses and minuses. If you play to keep the game close, it can be a plus or a minus depending on if you are better than or equal to or worse than your opponent.

Agamemnon wrote:

I am not talking about the defense specifically. I am talking about the entire philosophy of Fisher’s approach to the game. It brings with it certain pluses and minuses.

Fair enough.

Agamemnon wrote:

If we just discuss the Defense against the Steelers, then I agree with Laram.

I agree with a lot of his stuff too. Especially—

Once the Steelers got in the redzone the field shrank, and the Rams had less field to cover.

It worked. The Steelers got a lot of yards, but only one TD.

you always want to make the qb hold the ball a beat longer, to give the pass rush an opportunity.

But that can be accomplished by playing tight coverage, whether off or on man.