Wagoner: Run-first Rams' struggle go beyond the basics

So in addition to relying on rookie OL, Fisher’s brain trust shifted to a new zone blocking scheme which, in the OC’s words, takes precise synchronization between the players. And no one has run it before.

All after insisting that this year we needed to start fast.

A couple weeks back, I pointed out that relying on a rookie OL and seeking a fast start with a really tough early schedule were contradictory. I was told that I was being silly. Now we find out that it’s even worse.

It was not reasonable to expect a fast start with this offense constructed as it was.

I think the record bears out the simple observation that this regime runs miles to avoid taking responsibility for actually winning games.

But, you you know, they’re … close. Oh, so close. One of these days …

• This reply was modified 9 years, 1 month ago by rfl.

nittany ram wrote:

I think Fisher is still building for the future. He’s not in “win now” mode, because he knows he doesn’t have to be. His job is as secure as Belicheck’s. So he’s building every aspect of this team exactly the way he wants it without compromise while knowing he’s going to take some lumps in the process. He’s doing this because he knows he doesn’t have to win now.

You may be right.

And if so, well, I at least would consider that to be a cynical attitude. And damn tough on StL fans who have endured decades of lousy football and ALSO are looking at losing their team just when Fisher’s plans come to fruition.

I’d actually consider this, if true, to be more despicable than mere incompetence.

rfl wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

I think Fisher is still building for the future. He’s not in “win now” mode, because he knows he doesn’t have to be. His job is as secure as Belicheck’s. So he’s building every aspect of this team exactly the way he wants it without compromise while knowing he’s going to take some lumps in the process. He’s doing this because he knows he doesn’t have to win now.

You may be right.

And if so, well, I at least would consider that to be a cynical attitude. And damn tough on StL fans who have endured decades of lousy football and ALSO are looking at losing their team just when Fisher’s plans come to fruition.

I’d actually consider this, if true, to be more despicable than mere incompetence.

I don’t think it’s cynical. And the StL vs. LA thing just isn’t Fisher’s responsibility, and I’d be pissed, frankly, if that issue was influencing personnel decisions.

The alternative to attempting to build a rock-solid team from the ground up, patiently, over time, is to try to build one quickly through FA. Well, you can only grab so many guys through FA, and the fact is the Rams did what they could there only to have those players explode. I just don’t think there is any evidence that Fisher is complacently “mailing it in” in terms of building a winner. Actually, I don’t even know what that would mean, or look like.

I mean…”win now” mode is easier if you have the players. Fisher started out with very few quality players, and some of those weren’t ever on the field.

I am tired of the losing, too. We all are. But the explanation for their failure to win yet lies in personnel. I think this is the first season when we’ve looked at the Rams and been able to say, “Yeah, every unit on the team has talent now.” But one of those units -the OL – had to be completely overhauled this offseason, and it is just a bunch of babies. Their sluggish start was expected. And we don’t really know for sure that the line is fixed. GRob is a question mark, and Havenstein and Barnes haven’t dashed all doubts.

This is a young and talented team. Their day is coming, and it’s coming soon. And as I said in the preseason, I think next season is the season the Rams HAVE to produce (barring a rash of injuries).

Zooey wrote:

I don’t think it’s cynical. And the StL vs. LA thing just isn’t Fisher’s responsibility, and I’d be pissed, frankly, if that issue was influencing personnel decisions.

Well, I was just responding to someone else’s hypothesis about what Fisher is up to. I dunno if it’s true or not.

My point was that, this offseason, it was contradictory to A) aspire to a fast start against top opposition and B) start a green OL. Now we know the shift to zone blocking is also a problem.

Now, you appear to accept the notion that Year 4 is not the year to expect results. OK. I don’t really get that view, but essentially you are accepting Nittany’s premise–that it’s OK to accept another year of failure.

The only point I’d make in responding to your argument about team building is that it seems to rely on an either-or dilemma:

The alternative to attempting to build a rock-solid team from the ground up, patiently, over time, is to try to build one quickly through FA. Well, you can only grab so many guys through FA, and the fact is the Rams did what they could there only to have those players explode.

This formulation makes little sense to me. An NFL roster is a big, complex entity. Building it requires numerous strategies in different places. It’s never a choice between 2 polar options.

In terms of the OL, let’s place things in perspective. They would not have needed “so many guys.” One or two vets would have been plenty.

Now, a couple weeks back, you said I’d need to name names. I don’t accept the requirement, but I will partially respond now.

First, it was ridiculous to let Barksdale go. He was clearly miffed at being mucked about. It would not have cost that much to make him happy and keep him. Most likely, it would have been a matter of going to him early and making him feel wanted.

Keep Barksdale and the challenge this year would have been much less.

That leaves OC and one OG. Surely it’s not too much to try to get 1 serviceable vet at OG or OC. One? You asked me which one. I dunno. But anyone with mid-table capability and experience would have helped.

See, the point I’ve made is not about an absolute choice between vets and rookies. The league doesn’t work that way,m and this year, we ARE talented in other areas. I’ve been talking about this year as, at least, a TRANSITION. Suppose we’d kept Barksdale and signed a mid-level OC or OG. We could then draft all those young OL and work them in over a season or two. Surely that would have been smarter?

Cap money? Well, we signed Ayers and then Fairly, who seems to be a luxury, and shed Bradford’s salary. Surely if we really wanted to, we could have made room in the cap for Barksdale and 1 ordinary vet. The fact that we didn’t shows that the FO had other priorities. And, if you cared about this year, that made no sense.

The point is that the FO made a conscious choice to simply do nothing of substance with vet OL. And we are paying the price.

Then we have this sudden reference to zone blocking. I dunno whether that really matters a lot. But that’s what they’re saying. Assuming it does matter, then, again, it would be unrealistic to expect a fast start.

So, why say what they said? PR gobbledy-gook, I guess. But I think it would have been honest to put things in context. It’s not hard: “You know, we want to get off to a better start. We want to win. But we are committed to building a team for the long haul …” Blkah, Blah, Blah.

I dunno. Whatever.

It’s Year 4. Year 4.

I simply cannot understand why anyone would say that it is reasonable to wait til Year 5 to expect competitiveness. I don’t get the abstract argument for this.

And then when you consider the actual evidence of how the team plays, the sloppiness, the intermittent intensity, the way the talented defense is on 1 week and off the next …

I really cannot understand how it is that this bunch of coaches is getting this much indulgence from experienced and intelligent fans.

Zooey, you’re one of my favorite people online. But I am bewildered by your response to all of this.

Well, RFL, first of all, I just don’t know what I don’t know, and I’m reluctant to make judgments about what I don’t know. So, for example, nobody really knows what happened with Barksdale. You say the Rams SHOULD have gone to Barksdale early, and tried to make him feel wanted, and negotiate something that would have kept him here.

But the thing is, you don’t know that they didn’t do that. We DO know that Barksdale wanted a LOT more money than he eventually got on the open market. Meaning…Barksdale and his agent vastly overestimated his value.

So this is kind of made up, imo:

First, it was ridiculous to let Barksdale go. He was clearly miffed at being mucked about. It would not have cost that much to make him happy and keep him. Most likely, it would have been a matter of going to him early and making him feel wanted.

Keep Barksdale and the challenge this year would have been much less.

We all wanted Barksdale to stay, at least transitionally, including the Rams. Those talks broke down over money, but we don’t know which side bears responsibility for shutting that door. Therefore I don’t blame anybody. I don’t assume it was the Rams’ fault. I just don’t know.

The market was similarly cold for all OL. There are a lot of teams out there with OL needs, and there was just slim pickings in FA.

So the choice there may well have been 1. tie up cap space on a placeholder vet or two (and thus limit their ability to re-sign their own guys just as they emerge as red and blue chip players), or 2. go with rookies with high upside who are cheap, but better for the team in the long run both in terms of talent and finances (and health, incidentally).

They took option 2.

Now you may say that flies in the face of the “fast start” talk in preseason, and I respond by saying, “Big deal.” I don’t care. I want the team built right, and built sustainably for a 5 year run of contention.

If I was going to complain about the slow start, the OL personnel decisions aren’t where I would focus. I would complain that the first team offense didn’t get enough work in the preseason. Foles just hasn’t built any chemistry with his receivers, and the OL needs more experience. I would have played them more.

And my indulgence of Fisher boils down to this: He started with f*** all. And they are still the youngest team in the league. I am in awe of the foundation. Fisher has completely restocked the cupboards.

If they can keep this team together, they are going to win.

rfl wrote:

Obviously, we are applying different metrics. Just a couple of points:

1. The roster was in rough shape when Fisher and Snead got here. No doubt. But plenty of coaches have built competitive teams much faster than waiting until Year 5.

2. Talent. I started the thread the other day because I fundamentally disagree with the assumption that you can keep building talent until you win. Winning coaches need some talent, but they often beat more talented teams. And bad coaches screw up the opportunity with talent. Football is a coach’s game. Talent is no guarantee, and many teams achieve past their apparent talent limit.

3. In terms of talent, I like the build up of the team. I actually like what Snead does. I’d keep Snead and dump Fisher.

4. These discussions seem to mire themselves in abstractions. But, you have acknowledged some preparation issues, so that’s good. I personally think that this coaching staff’s prepration of its team has for 3+ years been spotty and sub-standard in many ways. I think Fisher is a sloppy coach. And I think it SHOWS ON THE FIELD in scores of ways and plays, whatever the team’s talent level is.

You should acknowledge, then, that the Rams HAVE beaten superior teams a number of times. I don’t think “playing over their head” is sustainable, though, by any team, regardless of the coach. Weaker teams win the World Series occasionally, but it just doesn’t happen in football. They can upset good teams here and there, but nobody in the NFL gets away with playing over their heads week in and week out.

As far as the team’s sloppiness, I agree with that. Though I can’t tell how much is coaching, and how much is youth. Penalties are down this year a bit, and I don’t have any stats, but my eyeballs tell me missed tackles are down. It’s been only 3 games, though. I will be watching the sloppiness, and the blown assignments. I do want to see improvement there.

I just think that this season was destined from the start of camp (with a new QB, OC and OL, coupled with a brutal opening set of games), to really begin on Oct. 25 against the Browns. I am expecting the Rams to win 7 of their last 11 games.

ag makes a good point about preseason preparation. i don’t think they took the optimal route. the oline should have played more snaps together.

however. one thing in the preseason that hampered the running game was the fact that mason and gurley were injured or not playing or practicing for much of it.

synchronization is important according to the internet and coaches for this zone blocking scheme. not just between linemen but between the running backs and the oline. not having those reps with gurley and mason has hurt them. did cunningham have an easier time running against seattle because he had all those reps with the first team? it’s interesting to consider.

again. i wrote earlier this week that i expected to see a difference against the arizona game. i think we will. i’m prediciting a semi-breakthrough for the running game.

also. i do agree that this fast start mostly applied to the defense. and i think everyone expected the offense to struggle a little bit. i don’t know about struggling this bad. and i think there are things the coaches could have done to alleviate that. he could have increased he live reps in preseason games. he could have gone predominantly man blocking to make it easier on the players. make the difference between 1-2 and 2-1 perhaps. but maybe fisher is more concerned with keeping the players rested. keeping them fresh. maybe he figures the difference would have only resulted in the difference of 1 or 2 games over the course of a season. and it was a fair tradeoff if you can keep them fresh for later on in the season. it’s a risk. but maybe that’s the risk you take when you know your job is safe.

we’ll see. if the running games makes significant progress against arizona, it might not even matter all that much in the long run.

where i would really disagree is the fact that there was nothing they could do to alleviate the situation. they could have stayed strictly with a man blocking scheme. and i don’t see any good reason why they didn’t. it could just be arrogance on the part of the coaches. honestly. even with all their experience, zn. they aren’t the brightest nor most humble people in the world. so yeah. i agree with rfl a little in that i sense a little bit of hubris or cynicism. or whatever you want to call it.

it wouldn’t be the first time.

now. does it ruin the whole season? no. we knew it was gonna be a struggle either way. so as long as they get this figured out. in the end. i won’t care too much. i just wonder why they went zone blocking. and i have yet to read a good reason why they did.

well if the zone blocking scheme is successful, the one thing we won’t know is if a man blocking scheme would have been just as successful. and if it would have been as successful, i’d really question why make the change.

i hope it doesn’t come to them having to scrap the zone blocking scheme. ultimately, i just want them to be successful. however they get there. but i just question why a zone blocking scheme. i’ll just have to trust that the coaches think this is the best scheme for this talent.

found this on the net.

the difference between the zone blocking scheme and man blocking scheme would explain robinson’s struggles as it seems to require more decision making from the olineman. to me that means they need reps. whereas in a man blocking scheme you know from the start of the play who you’re going to block.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/football-breakdowns/2014/2/18/5394212/seahawks-marshawn-lynch-zone-blocking-scheme-tom-cable

It is all opinions. Everyone gets to have their own. Some are more interesting than others. 😉

the difference between inside and outside zone.

A very simple explanation of the zone runs, and the difference between inside zone and outside zone

• This reply was modified 9 years, 1 month ago by InvaderRam.

InvaderRam wrote:

i just want gurley and mason to be awesome. preferably starting against arizona.

I would guess that Gurley is the reason they are shaping the running strategy the way they are.