RFL's challenge to the board:

[zn]

rfl wrote:

And I will simply point out that not a single poster in this thread has claimed to see any evidence of genuine excellence. Not one flash, not one play. Nothing. I find that telling regarding a unit expected to be elite.

I think all your arguments are fair, in terms of what one should ask and what to look for. Plus I think you’re right that it is possible to see flashes in a pre-season game, if there is something there to flash. I am saying, though, that with this particular game, there’s nothing to base an answer on.

The Rams first unit D was on the field for what? 2 series? And going against a team with a good OL, and (apparently) a long memory, which had specifically game-planned an attack on that defense…while the Rams did not do the equivalent. They just lined up.

If you watch it’s clear. Oakland has a very well-designed plan of attack which begins by negating Donald and setting up running plays that were just far more detailed in their construction than the ordinary “line up and play” stuff.

And that’s just one factor. The other is that the Rams #1s were in for probably about 2 series.

According to the snap counts (http://www.turfshowtimes.com/2015/8/16/9163739/2015-nfl-preseason-st-louis-rams-vs-oakland-raiders-snap-counts) the following players were in for 16 plays each:

McCleod, Johnson, Jenkins, Donald, McDonald, Quinn, Brockers, Laurinaitis, and Ogletree.

Heck that IS the Rams defense.

Combine those 2 things (Oakland rehearsing an attack on the Rams D, most of the starters being in the game for no more than 16 snaps) and IMO that’s not enough to even ask the question. (We probably differ on that but I am sticking to my guns.)

I think the question works better for the next couple of games. Right now it’s too soon to ask, in my view.

.

[rfl]

zn wrote:

I think all your arguments are fair, in terms of what one should ask and what to look for. Plus I think you’re right that it is possible to see flashes in a pre-season game, if there is something there to flash. I am saying, though, that with this particular game, there’s nothing to base an answer on. …

I think the question works better for the next couple of games. Right now it’s too soon to ask, in my view.

Fair enough.

One caveat, though. As we go forward and look for evidence, watch the deployments. Watch what Williams does in 2 areas particularly:

1) the D front. Does he twist the personnel into unsound, imbalanced arrangements that leave natural seams and weak zones?

2) the coverage. Does he apply enough pressure to give the pass rush time to apply pressure?

Those 2 factors negate our defensive talent more than opponents can do.

By virtue of the absurd ...

[rfl]

wv wrote:

“Doubting Nittany”

Ah, Caravaggio! This is actually one of my favorite painters and paintings.

How about the self-portrait as Goliath’s severed head, a confession to the Pope for his guilt as a murderer? Meg and I actually saw that one in Rome. Amazing.

<p>

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

By virtue of the absurd ...

[wv]

rfl wrote:

wv wrote:

“Doubting Nittany”

Ah, Caravaggio! This is actually one of my favorite painters and paintings.

How about the self-portrait as Goliath’s severed head, a confession to the Pope for his guilt as a murderer? Meg and I actually saw that one in Rome. Amazing.

I think we, possibly, might agree, tentatively,
that we do indeed see some evidence
that suggests Caravaggio did show flashes of
elite talent.

Granted he was no Jackson Pollock. 🙂

w
v

[Mackeyser]

rfl wrote:

Did you see any evidence of a Top 10, let alone Top 5, defense in OAK?

I mean, actual EVIDENCE! Like, “I could SEE it …” Not hopes and expectations and calculations. But manifest signs of the sort of dominance that makes offenses dread games against actual Top 5 Defenses.

If so, I’d really like to hear what it is that you saw.

I saw no evidence, but then again, I didn’t EXPECT to see it.

Frustration is unmet expectation. I saw what I expected to see, so I’m not frustrated. I expected Vanilla and I got it. I expected the Raiders to gameplan us a little, which they did which put them at a bit of an advantage. And it did.

Btw, it was the same on the other side. They seemed to not only gameplan for us a little, but they also went after Washington after Saffold went out with stunts and blitzes, which seemed pretty bush league to do in a preseason game, but why not? It’s a chance to get in work and see what you have so, try it.

And, Oakland is a much improved team over last year.

Were we sloppy? Yep.

Do I expect us to carry that level of sloppy into the season? No way.

Am I the least bit concerned? No. And I have no real reason to be. Now, if we see more of that against the Titans, then yes, I’ll begin to be concerned. But, no, I’m not concerned at this time.

Sports is the crucible of human virtue. The distillate remains are human vice.

[PA Ram]

I think that teams use the strength of this defense(quick defensive line–aggressive D) against us. They hit short quick passes or run through a blitz and set up their longer strikes. There isn’t a lot of TIME to hit the QB. And this defense is mostly about getting to that QB. When it happens–brilliant. Chaos strikes–good things happen. But teams know this and they’ll “sucker” this defense in sometimes…while knowing where the opening is for that quick pass. The Rams run out of position to defend, in a sense.

I don’t know if this is a flaw in the scheme or if there is a lack of discipline with players but whatever it is–teams seem to do a lot of the same things against us. There IS a formula, they seem to use. That’s what I THINK I see. I’d love to have access to stats that show how teams attack other teams compared to how they attack the Rams.

I think it was Nick Wagner(not sure)who wrote something about this team never becoming a top 5 defense statistically but still being one of the top defenses. This team is about causing chaos–creating a sack, a turnover, a fumble and along the way they’ll give up yards.

That could be correct.

But they absolutely will need help from the offense. If the offense continues to struggle and the defense is constantly on the field they just won’t hold up over the course of 16 games.

Are they an elite defense?

I believe that the pieces are in place for that. But that doesn’t mean anything if you can’t put it together.

Paper champions don’t win anything.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick

[rfl]

Mackeyser wrote:

I saw no evidence, but then again, I didn’t EXPECT to see it.

Frustration is unmet expectation. I saw what I expected to see, so I’m not frustrated.

Mac, my response can’t fit your definition. I saw exactly what I expected to see.

I think Williams runs unsound defenses. And I think Fisher takes a very casual approach to P/S. I expected to see what I saw … no evidence that so many people seem to assume is going to emerge.

My expectations will not be met if we start playing intense, disciplined, competitive football before late October.

By virtue of the absurd ...

[rfl]

PA Ram wrote:

I think that teams use the strength of this defense(quick defensive line–aggressive D) against us. They hit short quick passes or run through a blitz and set up their longer strikes. There isn’t a lot of TIME to hit the QB. And this defense is mostly about getting to that QB. When it happens–brilliant. Chaos strikes–good things happen. But teams know this and they’ll “sucker” this defense in sometimes…while knowing where the opening is for that quick pass. The Rams run out of position to defend, in a sense.

This is exactly correct.

I’ll just say that this has been the response of every competent offense to good pass rushes since Deacon and Merle’s time. And any decent DC knows it. If you’re going to get value from a great natural pass rush, you MUST have ways to challenge the quick passing game.

Williams, however, simply concedes the short passing game most of the time. So it isn’t just offenses using our strength against us. It’s Williams inviting them to do so.

I’ll say that I deeply resent the unsoundness of the deployments Williams seems inexplicably to love. As long as he keeps playing his secondary in the first row of the stands, our pass rush will accomplish little. For the reasons you note.

By virtue of the absurd ...

[wv]

rfl wrote:

PA Ram wrote:

I think that teams use the strength of this defense(quick defensive line–aggressive D) against us. They hit short quick passes or run through a blitz and set up their longer strikes. There isn’t a lot of TIME to hit the QB. And this defense is mostly about getting to that QB. When it happens–brilliant. Chaos strikes–good things happen. But teams know this and they’ll “sucker” this defense in sometimes…while knowing where the opening is for that quick pass. The Rams run out of position to defend, in a sense.

This is exactly correct.

I’ll just say that this has been the response of every competent offense to good pass rushes since Deacon and Merle’s time. And any decent DC knows it. If you’re going to get value from a great natural pass rush, you MUST have ways to challenge the quick passing game.

Williams, however, simply concedes the short passing game most of the time. So it isn’t just offenses using our strength against us. It’s Williams inviting them to do so.

I’ll say that I deeply resent the unsoundness of the deployments Williams seems inexplicably to love. As long as he keeps playing his secondary in the first row of the stands, our pass rush will accomplish little. For the reasons you note.

Well, we have all seen ‘some’ games where ‘that’ happened.
Ie, the opposing offense just dinked and dunked all the way
down the field, repeatedly, or at critical times.

But we know, Fisher and GW are not idiots, right? We know that.

So, we know there must be some reason why the Rams secondary,
“seemingly” has played too soft too much of the time, in the past.

RFL’s view seems to be “GW deploys his players in unsound ways”.

I just dunno if thats the truth, or a partial truth or what.
I just dunno. Perhaps there are other explanations or
perhaps the secondary is not playing as soft as it looks
most of the time. I dunno.

Its interesting that if RFL is right, then GW is totally reckless
with his front Seven and totally timid with his back four.

w
v

[Agamemnon]

They might not be stupid, but I think they can be totally stubborn. 😉

Agamemnon

[zn]

wv wrote:

Well, we have all seen ‘some’ games where ‘that’ happened.
Ie, the opposing offense just dinked and dunked all the way
down the field, repeatedly, or at critical times.

And we have seen games in 2014 where they directly addressed that, and effectively too.

I approach it this way. Think of the reasons why you wouldn’t want to play press coverage with this defense. Because in press coverage, the corners turn their backs on the LOS.

Then think of why they WOULD want to play the corners off. Because they are willing to concede yards for points.

And of course that means keeping the receivers in front of them.

In terms of the short passing game, I am surprised people remember when that hurt, and don’t remember when the Rams played it very effectively. To play it effectively, you limit yards after the catch. I remember a few games last year where the safeties would be all over those plays, in a very effective way, and in fact IMO it was the best sustained, series after series safety play we have seen from the Rams for years. Better than the GSOT defense and going back decades.

[Author]

Posts