Nick Fairley

nittany ram wrote:

After 4 games, Fairley has a stat line of 4 tackles, 2 assists and 0.5 sacks.

Not impressive numbers, but of course stats might not tell the whole story.

Anybody have a feel for how well he’s playing? Is he getting much PT?

Fairley developed a rep for being unmotivated and mentally absent in Detroit but in camp with the Rams he seemed refocused. But I think it’s hard for people who have motivational issues to remain motivated for extended periods of time.

Fwiw, numbers.

Snap counts, Rams DL. Not counting special teams. (Of which NF has zero snaps anyway).

99-A.Donald 234
94-R.Quinn 219
91-C.Long 200
90-M.Brockers 169
95-W.Hayes 112
93-E.Westbrooks 74
98-N.Fairley 65
97-E.Sims 31

So not much action. But also fwiw, Fairley’s PFF rank:

Fairley is ranked 12th out of 70 DTs and NTs who have played at least 60-something snaps.

Donald btw is rated 1st, and Brockers is 15th.

So anyway that’s all FWIW squared.

wv wrote:

How come Simms is used so little?
Is he hurt? I forget.

Yes hurt.

lyser wrote:

He backs up both or just AD?

Just AD. Westbrooks backs up Brockers. Also, Donald is on the field a lot because they put him at at the nose in 3-3 sets in passing situations.

nittany ram wrote:

zn wrote:

lyser wrote:

He backs up both or just AD?

Just AD. Westbrooks backs up Brockers. Also, Donald is on the field a lot because they put him at at the nose in 3-3 sets in passing situations.

It could be that Fairley’s lack of PT is simply a matter of Donald playing so well without requiring much rest. It may have nothing to do with Fairley at all. The coaches may be happy with Fairley’s effort. He may be everything they hoped he would be. Donald’s just a lot better. And there’s no shame in that because Donald is a lot better than everyone.

Yeah – think your rite “big boy day”

lyser wrote:

That is a hell of a D line. Jeezus.

Well, i dunno. They are still getting
gouged by the run it looks like.
Havent perused the stats on that though.

Its a strange team at this point. I think of the DLine
as “very dangerous” but not really
a “great DLine” in the sense of being
dependable and complete.

w
v

nittany ram wrote:

wv wrote:

lyser wrote:

That is a hell of a D line. Jeezus.

Well, i dunno. They are still getting
gouged by the run it looks like.
Havent perused the stats on that though.

w
v

Yeah. But it’s not like backs are consistently getting 5 yards a carry against them. They give up nothing for 10 plays and then get gouged by a 20 or 30 yarder. I think it’s also hard for us to always know who is at fault for the big runs…is it the DL or is it the LBs, etc.

But we do see maddening breakdowns at times.

Frustrating.

Of course, all d-lines get gouged sometimes. Dorsett and Foreman had some big days against those great Rams d-lines of the 70’s.

===================

Well all i know iz, this group aint the Sapp-Bucs or
the Saragusa-Ravens. It aint that kind of ‘great.’

Its dangerous and talented…and a bit flawed somehow,
it seems.

Would you rather have the 2015 Rams Defense
or the 1999 Rams Defense?
w
v

• This reply was modified 9 years, 2 months ago by wv.

nittany ram wrote:

I agree there is a flaw in the Rams run defense. I’m just not sure if the flaw resides within the d-line. It very well may, but I don’t know.

Can the issues be traced to individual players? Is it the scheme?

When you give up big runs, every level of the defense is involved…d-line, LBs, safeties…

=================

Maybe GW’s defense in New Orleans was the same way. I dunno.
They won a Ring there of course, but it was the Offense that
carried that team — though as i recall the D got
tons of turnovers. And bounties.

w
v

wv wrote:

Would you rather have the 2015 Rams Defense
or the 1999 Rams Defense?

Interesting question. I would take the 2015 unit.

For me the question becomes, who on the 99 unit replaces the equivalent guy in 2015? To me it’s just Fletcher, and no one else. None of the DL and none of the secondary.