SF game reaction thread

[Zooey]

zn wrote:

Yes things have to be interpreted. For example you have already done that. You have interpreted the record as being a direct result of Fisher’s coaching. I don’t.

I interpret the 1st 2 years as a result of rebuilding plus losing a starting qb.

I interpret the next 2 years as being an example of what happens when a team does not have a starting qb AND has issues with the OL.

Given how I see that, 7-9 in 2015 was actually quite an achievement. That is, it doesn’t matter who the coach is if all you have for 2 years is BOTH no qb (only #2 types plus a starter who fell apart and melted down) AND big issues with the OL (injuries, and then inexperience PLUS injuries). I cannot think of any team that won under those dual conditions.

So numbers are not real…they are always the products of interpretation.

YOu look at the numbers and say see, bad coach.

I look at the numbers and say see, what do you expect when they have that kind of double problem.

You think (it seems) it’s natural and inevitable that the coach is the final cause and source of blame for that.

I think it;s natural and inevitable that any coach would have problems if they faced that kind of double problem for 2 years running.

.

What I get from that is that one cannot conclude that the first four years were the result of bad coaching because no coach could have won under those circumstances. So the coaching gets a pass. But it doesn’t mean the coaching was GOOD during those four years, only that one cannot prove that it was bad. So the question remains open.

Then – this year – none of the aforementioned excuses apply.

The team has talent.

The team is healthy.

They haven’t changed systems this year, so there is consistency.

And, under those conditions, they rolled out a big bag of suckiness.

One game doesn’t prove anything. But with everything else lined up to go right, they went wrong in dramatic fashion. Could have just been the horoscopes for the day, or something. But coaching is one of the possible explanations.

15 games to go.

[InvaderRam]

I really dont think anyone is making excuses for THAT one game performance, Invader.

On Monday night against SF, they were dreadful. Execrable… grody, even.

ok not excuses but saying it’s just one game and that they’ve bounced back from those wins before…

it’s the same story. the same inconsistency that’s so infuriating. how long until one says ok. i’ve seen enough. it’s time for a change.

me? i say three years. between the move and drafting a qb number one overall it’d be counterproductive to change coaches now.

[zn]

Zooey wrote:

Then – this year – none of the aforementioned excuses apply.

My only real comment is that I would not use the word “excuses.” “Excuses” as a word cannot help but imply that something is being rationalized or in some way or another a true account (ie. a different opinion or interpretation) is being evaded.

I would just call it an analysis.

And so far this year, we have one bad game, against a team that…and this is often the case in the much lamented big losses…was underestimated in advance of the contest. Therefore it is also viewed not just as a bad loss, but a bad loss in a game that ought to have been won. (My take? Kelly gets a lot out of minor qbs and that defense is just better than many have assumed.)

So we don’t have a “this year,” not yet.

You’re right that the conditions I described covering the last 2 years do not pertain now. If nothing else presumably the OL is better and is still healthy (though they’re still starting a #2 qb). So yes those conditions do not pertain now…so we shall see, about this year.

BTW yes I said something about good coaching. I said that going 7-9 under those conditions was something of an achievement. To me bad coaching would mean the whole thing would have been a lot worse last year.

Plus of course like everyone else I have no idea what moving does to a team and it’s prep. The Oilers went 8-8 2 years in a row after moving and becoming the Titans. I am just kind of surprised no one mentioned this.

I think it’s just another example of a deeper debate: everything’s coaching v. always account for the context.

[Zooey]

zn wrote:

Zooey wrote:

Then – this year – none of the aforementioned excuses apply.

My only real comment is that I would not use the word “excuses.” “Excuses” as a word cannot help but imply that something is being rationalized or in some way or another a true account (ie. a different opinion or interpretation) is being evaded.

[InvaderRam]

i said this briefly on the game chat, but my prediction is the rams start goff game 5 against buffalo.

to me i interpret the lack of mid range passing game and lack of any sort of vertical passing attack as a statement of belief in keenum’s lack of ability. it’s pretty apparent that they do not want to put any kind of significant responsibility on his shoulder.

but goff needs time and seattle and arizona are going to be brutal games.

give him another 4 weeks to get him up to speed and insert him against a relatively easier defense in buffalo. then depending on how things go maybe we see them open it up a little.

but keenum’s in for a rough ride the next three games. good luck, case!

• This reply was modified 8 years, 2 months ago by InvaderRam.

[zn]

InvaderRam wrote:

lack of any sort of vertical passing attack

Here’s the thing about that. Last year Keenum DID demonstrate the ability to hit long passes in a vertical attack. Numbers back that btw. So it can’t be that they don’t believe they have that with him…they DO have that with him.

[Ozoneranger]

InvaderRam wrote:

i said this briefly on the game chat, but my prediction is the rams start goff game 5 against buffalo.

to me i interpret the lack of mid range passing game and lack of any sort of vertical passing attack as a statement of belief in keenum’s lack of ability. it’s pretty apparent that they do not want to put any kind of significant responsibility on his shoulder.

but goff needs time and seattle and arizona are going to be brutal games.

give him another 4 weeks to get him up to speed and insert him against a relatively easier defense in buffalo. then depending on how things go maybe we see them open it up a little.

but keenum’s in for a rough ride the next three games. good luck, case!

With all due respect, the team will be 0-4 and I’ll be (hopefully) transitioning to the Giants in the NLDS and Sharks hockey…

Oh. And with Goff, do you really think they’ll go vertical and away from horizontal?

—

In my 46 years as a Rams fan, this one was one makes the top ten of galling losses.

Once again, I was fooled by the pre-season. They mixed it up, made some plays and Keenum looked good. Then, they curtain went up for real, and in true Fisher fashion, the play calling went all 1970’s. I mean, the 49ers put 10 guys on the line a few times, daring Keenum to beat them with his arm…didn’t Fisher see that? Does the word “creativity” come to mind? And did they try even one deep strike to keep the Niners defense honest and give Gurley a fighting chance?

Nope, offense is not in his repertoire.

Jesus Christ, he won’t change. And this is all Fisher. I remarked on JT’s chat today- “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.” God, it’s going on five years. Five! Kroenke, brilliant and ruthless as he is, cannot be in the midst of re-upping this guy. He needs to be set out to pasture.

The real surprise was the defense. I thought they played well going into the the 4th when the game was still in question. The three dropped pics, two of which would likely have gone for six, really hurt…but the offense killed the defense last night.

Next up, Seattle. I can just see Wilson, bum ankle and all, doing enough to put 14 on the board. Which will be enough against the Rams. Then comes a resurgent Tampa team followed by Arizona.

This was pathetic. 0-4 is a real possibility.

[InvaderRam]

zn wrote:

InvaderRam wrote:

lack of any sort of vertical passing attack

Here’s the thing about that. Last year Keenum DID demonstrate the ability to hit long passes in a vertical attack. Numbers back that btw. So it can’t be that they don’t believe they have that with him…they DO have that with him.

then what is it?

[InvaderRam]

Ozoneranger wrote:

InvaderRam wrote:

i said this briefly on the game chat, but my prediction is the rams start goff game 5 against buffalo.

to me i interpret the lack of mid range passing game and lack of any sort of vertical passing attack as a statement of belief in keenum’s lack of ability. it’s pretty apparent that they do not want to put any kind of significant responsibility on his shoulder.

but goff needs time and seattle and arizona are going to be brutal games.

give him another 4 weeks to get him up to speed and insert him against a relatively easier defense in buffalo. then depending on how things go maybe we see them open it up a little.

but keenum’s in for a rough ride the next three games. good luck, case!

With all due respect, the team will be 0-4 and I’ll be (hopefully) transitioning to the Giants in the NLDS and Sharks hockey…

Oh. And with Goff, do you really think they’ll go vertical and away from horizontal?

i think the mid range passing game will come into play. he’s got the arm. keenum doesn’t.

[zn]

InvaderRam wrote:

zn wrote:

InvaderRam wrote:

lack of any sort of vertical passing attack

Here’s the thing about that. Last year Keenum DID demonstrate the ability to hit long passes in a vertical attack. Numbers back that btw. So it can’t be that they don’t believe they have that with him…they DO have that with him.

then what is it?

I would have to watch the entire game again. My impression is that the SF defense is far better than people wanted to believe.

Here’s some Keenum throws from last year btw.

[InvaderRam]

well keenum did not look good yesterday. i think a starting caliber qb does not look that bad against that defense. but maybe you’re right and the niners end up having a good defense capable of completely shutting down an nfl offense.

i’m a much bigger believer in goff’s arm talent. keenum’s a hard worker. he studies hard but he doesn’t have the physical ability.

[zn]

InvaderRam wrote:

well keenum did not look good yesterday. i think a starting caliber qb does not look that bad against that defense. but maybe you’re right and the niners end up having a good defense capable of completely shutting down an nfl offense.

I think both things are right. He’s not starting caliber, though they can do better than that with him.

And it is possible that the 9ers defense is just much better than many assumed.

But I don’t know precisely what went wrong yesterday. I would have to watch it again.

[Zooey]

zn wrote:

InvaderRam wrote:

well keenum did not look good yesterday. i think a starting caliber qb does not look that bad against that defense. but maybe you’re right and the niners end up having a good defense capable of completely shutting down an nfl offense.

I think both things are right. He’s not starting caliber, though they can do better than that with him.

And it is possible that the 9ers defense is just much better than many assumed.

But I don’t know precisely what went wrong yesterday. I would have to watch it again.

Yeah, I want to hear from the tape analysis guys, and watch a couple more games. Live…it looked like Keenum was doing a Nick Foles impression, checking down pretty much immediately to somebody in the flat. I don’t understand why we are throwing 15 yards horizontally and 3 yards vertically when it takes the same amount of time to throw 15 yards vertically and 3 yards horizontally. Or whatever. But this has been the Rams for several years now, and it is tiresome. If it worked, I wouldn’t care. But it works like 10% of the time.

They didn’t run Austin, did they? Either from the backfield or an end around.

Well, I will wait for the tale of the tape.

[InvaderRam]

well the whole question for me is how much of it is execution? how much of it is design? how much of it is tailoring the game plan to the ability of the players?

is keenum not seeing the open receivers? are the receivers just not getting open? are the receivers not being put in a position to succeed?

and just going off of memory the interior oline and hav were giving up a lot of pressure.

just one big mess. how much can goff change that? will he find the open receivers keenum can’t? are there open receivers to be found? will goff’s ability allow the coaches to open up the offense? can goff inspire belief where keenum couldn’t?

yeesh!

• This reply was modified 8 years, 2 months ago by InvaderRam.

[PA Ram]

You know–to me the most disturbing thing of all may not even be the offense.

What the heck is wrong with the defense? I mean–this is an honest question–I’m not trying to be snide. What went wrong there? I just don’t believe we faced a great 49er offense. or a great QB. The middle of the field was WIDE open. What did they do? What did they change? I know we have technically one linebacker on the field now and it’s a guy who has not played the middle position before. I know that guy appeared to have a bad game. But is this a case of Greg Williams trying to be smarter than everyone else?

What is it?

Did they blitz at all? Why did it take so long to stop Gabbert’s running? It seemed bizarre.

The offense is obviously a disaster–but the defense doesn’t seem to make sense.

Was it simply poor play? Confusion by the players? I have honestly no idea. But I am curious to read everyone’s thoughts.

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

[Zooey]

PA Ram wrote:

You know–to me the most disturbing thing of all may not even be the offense.

What the heck is wrong with the defense? I mean–this is an honest question–I’m not trying to be snide. What went wrong there? I just don’t believe we faced a great 49er offense. or a great QB. The middle of the field was WIDE open. What did they do? What did they change? I know we have technically one linebacker on the field now and it’s a guy who has not played the middle position before. I know that guy appeared to have a bad game. But is this a case of Greg Williams trying to be smarter than everyone else?

What is it?

Did they blitz at all? Why did it take so long to stop Gabbert’s running? It seemed bizarre.

The offense is obviously a disaster–but the defense doesn’t seem to make sense.

Was it simply poor play? Confusion by the players? I have honestly no idea. But I am curious to read everyone’s thoughts.

I agree. If someone had offered me an over/under for the 9ers at 27.5 points, I would have laughed my ass off all the way to bankruptcy. They have Carlos Hyde, and nothing.

[Eternal Ramnation]

zn wrote:

Eternal Ramnation wrote:

zn wrote:

that is not true ER. numbers mean nothing in themselves you have to interpret them. you and I interpret the reasons for the record differently

I interpret the 65 games coached by Fisher as 65 games coached by Fisher. You can argue your interpretation and I am pulling for you and your happiness on this but the number 65 is not open to interpretation.

Yes things have to be interpreted. For example you have already done that. You have interpreted the record as being a direct result of Fisher’s coaching. I don’t.

I interpret the 1st 2 years as a result of rebuilding plus losing a starting qb.

I interpret the next 2 years as being an example of what happens when a team does not have a starting qb AND has issues with the OL.

Given how I see that, 7-9 in 2015 was actually quite an achievement. That is, it doesn’t matter who the coach is if all you have for 2 years is BOTH no qb (only #2 types plus a starter who fell apart and melted down) AND big issues with the OL (injuries, and then inexperience PLUS injuries). I cannot think of any team that won under those dual conditions.

So numbers are not real…they are always the products of interpretation.

YOu look at the numbers and say see, bad coach.

I look at the numbers and say see, what do you expect when they have that kind of double problem.

You think (it seems) it’s natural and inevitable that the coach is the final cause and source of blame for that.

I think it;s natural and inevitable that any coach would have problems if they faced that kind of double problem for 2 years running.

.

I hear you Zn but it’s not my argument . I am fully aware of your ability to talk me down of ledge year after year and I admire that quality. The sample size is not 1 game. I don’t deny injuries play their part and Fisher is not at fault for everything in every game every season and there have been some great games for which I give Fisher his due but sometimes it does come down to coaching. Last night he said he didn’t expect that out of them, the same thing he said after the vikes crushed us at home on the opener in 14′. If he doesn’t expect it why do I ?The roster has changed dramatically since those days but the team that showed up last night was the same team that showed up in 2014 and I do interpret that to be the coach.

[Hram]

Zooey understands

Gifts a teaching moment

Sadness dissipates

Thank you

[zn]

Zooey wrote:

They didn’t run Austin, did they? Either from the backfield or an end around.

No they used Austin pretty much as a straight-up outside receiver. Which if you asked me in advance, I would say no, he’s not that, don’t bother. He’s better if you mix him in as the jet sweeep, backfield guy.

[InvaderRam]

i’m hoping cooper and spruce get healthy soon and make a real contribution to this offense.

[Eternal Ramnation]

InvaderRam wrote:

i’m hoping cooper and spruce get healthy soon and make a real contribution to this offense.

At least stacking 9 or 10 in the box would stop , Spruce in the slot takes away your nickle from run D.

[zn]

zn wrote:

I would have to watch the entire game again. My impression is that the SF defense is far better than people wanted to believe.

zn wrote:

And it is possible that the 9ers defense is just much better than many assumed.

So much for that theory.

Right now (ie. a couple of days after the Tampa game), this looks like it was just a bad game. For reasons I don’t think anyone has quite got a handle on yet.

I have some theories and speculations. But they’re just that, theories.

…

[wv]

zn wrote:

zn wrote:

I would have to watch the entire game again. My impression is that the SF defense is far better than people wanted to believe.

zn wrote:

And it is possible that the 9ers defense is just much better than many assumed.

So much for that theory.

Right now (ie. a couple of days after the Tampa game), this looks like it was just a bad game. For reasons I don’t think anyone has quite got a handle on yet.

I have some theories and speculations. But they’re just that, theories.

…

————-
My own gut instinct is that it was “just a bad game”. I dont really even think about that game when I’m trying to figure out who this team is or who its becoming. I kinda throw that game out. I’m not sure why i think that. Just a gut feeling. I’m pretty sure if the two teams played again tomorrow, I’d pick the Rams to win a close game.

SF has played well against the Rams lately. They either match up good or they know stuff from film. But i still think the Rams will win the rematch.

w
v

[Author]

Posts