zn wrote:

Justin @Jutt7777Justin
Who’s ahead in the center battle right? Your opinion.

@nwagoner: This question is almost as difficult to answer as the previous one. The Rams haven’t tipped their hand, as Tim Barnes, Barrett Jones and Demetrius Rhaney continue to rotate.

To my eyes, Rhaney looks like he has the most upside as a pure blocker but I’m not sure he’ll be comfortable enough handling all of the checks and things a center must do to be ready to start this season.

So I’m going to continue to give the slightest of edges to Jones at this point.

As I’ve maintained all along, though, there’s not an outcome that would surprise me in this contest.

Listen to the message beneath the empty comments.

Here is a team publicist (?) asked about the center position. And not a single word here about anyone looking good.

Rhaney is said to have “upside” as a blocker. But not likely to be comfortable making the calls.

There’s a slight edge given to Jones. No comment as to why. No indication that he actually showing anything as a player. Nothing. Crickets.

And not a word of any kind about Barnes, the only guy with experience.

But the rotation goes on and nothing would be surprising.

The pundits are not saying anything, folks. I think that makes a thundering statement–we have a big, big problem at OC.

And the camp reports have either noted our guys being overrun or said precious little. I’m still looking for the first observation that would make me begin to have hope.

The soft spot at OC is going to hurt everything we do on offense. It’s up the middle, guys. And it’s going to blow us up. I’d hate to be Foles, and I doubt he remains healthy for long.

Early returns indicate it’s going to take Havenstein some time to develop in pass protection, but that was to be expected after the Rams drafted him.

This is very tricky. There are several levels to this matter of “early returns”:

1. the early camp issue in which OL always trails DL. Always.

2. the learning the offense issue. Havenstein talks about this:

“It’s the speed mixed with playbook when we have something new and you are really thinking about your assignment instead of walking up and already knowing.”

This guy–with Brown–is A) a rookie learning the NFL’s bewildering combination of offense and defense and B) new to this offense. Hesitation kills in pro sports, yet hesitation is built into where H and B are at right now. All observations must try to take that into account.

3. the talent and preparedness issue. Does he have the basic package to do well in competitive matchups? And how quickly can he step up on the learning curve?

Right now, it’s #3 that really matters. The judgment we’re looking for is whether he is a good bet for this year, starting against SEA.

But that’s such a hard thing to observe. This account acknowledges that these are early returns and that a learning curve is to be expected. But does that mean, “He seems shaky, but the Rams figure he’ll grow into things”? Or does it mean “Though making rookie mistakes, he looks sound and viable, and likely to be ready for Week 1”?

Dunno. We’ll keep watching.

But when the pre-season games start, we have to try to distinguish between learning curve and talent. Hard thing to do.

NERam wrote:

If the OL can pull it together to produce a power running game and a passing game, coupled with a formidable “D”, I dunno, looks like a potential trifecta.

I think what I sense right now is an incredibly wide range of possibilities. A huge gap between this team’s ceiling and floor.

I can see why so many posters on this board more or less expect 10 wins, and not just because they feel it’s about time. There is the POTENTIAL for something special, with a defense that really could be elite, talent at RBs and receivers, a solid QB who could conceivably be more than that, and what MIGHT be a really talented OL. If it all gels into a positive synergy, then, yes, we might hit a trifecta.

But, that OL is awfully green. Foles is far from a sure thing. And as I have reminded us forever, that incredibly talented defense only lived up to its potential last year for less than half the season AFTER the campaign was lost. If the OL doesn’t come together–easy to imagine–Foles looks shaky, and Williams can’t figure out how to maximize the effectiveness of our talent on D (he hasn’t done it yet!) then, playing a very tough schedule, we could flail about yet again.

I can see us going 5-11. I can, And I can see us going 11-5. (Just barely.)

If I were a betting man, I’d bet virtually nothing on this team either way.

Not buying it. At all.

I do not see where he fits in the offense. I see us setting out to balance our RB production with 3 quality TEs and 4 pretty good WRs and I just don’t get where the touches will come from.

And, I have never seen any indication that he really has anything special to offer.

Now, usually I want to be wrong about negative expectations of Rams. Not sure I want to be wrong about Tavon. I don’t know whose production I’d be willing to sacrifice to Tavon. I don’t hate the guy. I just don’t have any idea how he fits in or what he has to offer.

I am glad to see this. And I’d add a factor.

I think the FO believes–and we fans hope–that the team is going to break out this year and become a winning team.

If that happens, the price for every contributing player goes up. Think Colin K could have signed the size contract he did had he not played in a Super Bowl and title games?

We have, theoretically, assembled a lot of top talent. Assuming the team breaks out this year, this off season is the last opportunity to lock a bunch of that talent up at the losing team discount. And it’s the perfect time, since the players probably also believe they are in on something about to go big. This is a moment not to be missed.

rfl wrote:

I gotta say, I don’t like what I am reading about the OL competition.

If Barnes is the best we can do … oooh boy!

Oooops. Meant to say OC competition–the centers!

(Foles) is holding the ball WAY too long when going through the progressions. Is it because he is still learning the playbook and doesn’t know automatically where the receivers are supposed to be? I sure hope so.

A couple of brief points.

1st, while many observers quite sensibly acknowledge that OL can’t be fairly evaluated without full pads, what is often forgotten is that QBs can’t be fairly evaluated for holding on to the ball in early scrimmages either.

We have to understand that, early in camp, an offense is not really integrated yet–even when they are going 11 on 11. The OL is doing its thing. The backs are coordinating their moves in the running game. And, in the passing game, the QBs are working to get timing down with their receivers. No one hits the QB with the protective jerseys. They know that, and they are going to go through with the passing play even though everyone knows it “woulda” been a sack. The OL cannot be expected to provide the protection they will later. And the point of the QB decision-making is not to make the most of a bad play, but to get the work in connecting with WRs. It’s a completely different mindset from what actual competition is.

On the other hand, I get a long-distance impression about the difference between Foles and Sam.

Sam was known as a safe QB. His pretty good stats were in large part based on avoiding trouble and very quickly checking down. This is an important virtue in QBs … and can be a weakness. Sam was frequently criticized for lacking the nerve to “throw people open” and for checking down to throw ineffectual, underneath passes all the time.

Foles, I tend to think, may be the other sort of QB. He appears to be very nervy in throwing the football into traffic, believing he can make the play. That highlight reel someone put up a few weeks back shows him doing that. And that’s a very good thing … except when it isn’t. A QB who stubbornly stays with the 1st read and tries to throw people open makes mistakes and throws picks. This apparently is what people criticized Foles for last year.

Now, great QBs balance the two. Sam may or may not have the potential to be a great QB, but he never flashed it for us. Foles probably doesn’t have what it takes to be a great QB.

But we need to understand both sides of what Foles is likely to show us. He will make big plays in tiny windows. A couple of camp reports have spoken glowingly of examples of that already. The other side of the same coin is reckless risk-taking. Sometimes, that nervy QB will get burned. More often perhaps than a guy like Sam whose instinct was always to check down.

I dunno what any of this adds up to. Foles is new to the offense and to our receivers and he’s playing in drills which don’t ask him to minimize the damage on broken plays. Hopefully, he’ll settle in nicely.

But understand that his package will probably be very different from Sam’s. He will take that extra look and try to squeeze the ball in. That will produce inspiring plays AND bad picks. Let’s recognize the relationship between the 2 sides of the coin.

snowman wrote:

RFL, I read somewhere that Foles would be a good fit for our offense because he is very good at selling play action and making accurate passes in short to medium routes. This might not be realized until the latter half of the season when Gurley is healthy enough to play regularly, but I hope it’s true.

Yeah, Man, I’ve heard that too. It makes sense to me on a sort of impressionistic basis. I have hopes for it.

But I am not aware of much in-depth analysis of it. And when I see a headline talking about “fit,” or I see an article claiming Kelly didn’t like Foles as his QB, I wish we’d get some substance.

But, then, it is our commercial media, and any expectations of substance are pretty foolish on my part.

The Rams view Kendricks as an integral part of their offense because of his versatility. Kendricks has worked in multiple roles, occasionally lining up at fullback in addition to normal duties at tight end. …

The Rams let him know that they intend to get him more involved in the passing game, something Kendricks sought when he hit the open market. Now, it’s up to the Rams to find ways to get Kendricks more opportunities to make plays and for Kendricks to take advantage of those chances.

What the Rams need from him: Kendricks isn’t going to be asked to carry the freight for the offense as a pass-catcher or even as a blocker, but the Rams simply need him to be productive in both areas in order for the offense to become what the team envisions.

In terms of receiving, something similar to Kendricks’ career-best numbers — say, 50 catches, 500-600 receiving yards and five to seven touchdowns — would offer a solid return on investment.

Outlook: Kendricks has quietly been one of the Rams’ most consistent performers offensively. The question now is whether he can take the next step to produce in the passing game.

There’s a bit of a chicken or the egg thing happening with Kendricks where it’s fair to wonder whether the Rams have given him fewer opportunities because he hasn’t excelled in that area or if he hasn’t excelled in that area because he hasn’t had the chances to do so.

Regardless, it doesn’t seem like it’s asking too much for Kendricks to offer the kind of production mentioned above. The question will be whether he will actually get the chance to do so or if those were empty promises made in an effort to keep Kendricks in St. Louis.

I gotta stop reading these things. The reasoning is laughable.

Here, Wagoner concedes Kendricks’ value and achievement. He admits that the Rams resigned BECAUSE they see his flexibility as central to their offense.

Then, he says, well, we need more than that. And he puts up some numbers–apparently arbitrarily chosen–that Kendricks SHOULD produce.

Meanwhile, there’s no reference to Cook. Cook will get playing time because he offers a different package than does L K. He is the dedicated passing threat. He’s better at that (albeit uneven in his performance). For Kendricks to get to Wagoner’s numbers, they’d have to reduce Cook’s role. Is that what Wagoner is proposing?

Hell, maybe they are. Maybe they’re tired of Cook’s under-performance. If so, that answers W’s “chicken-and-egg” question. K has had limited performance because of Cook’s being used heavily as a receiving TE. Either that continues and K doesn’t reach loftier numbers even if he catches the ball well, or K displaces Cook and proves that he is not only more versatile but also comparable as a receiver.

But they won’t BOTH happen.

And the logic of the facts W himself cites undermines his big point–the demand for more passing stats. Kendricks’ versatility has value in itself, so much value that the Rams extended him. Apparently, they see his ability to receive AND BLOCK as a worthwhile “return on investment” in itself. Maybe, W should realize that and learn to value what Kendricks actually IS and always has been!

Sigh …

No mention of HOW JENKINS WAS DEPLOYED!

Wagoner rattles on about the big mistakes issue. He acknowledges the big play factor. But in that discussion …

Hew never considers the fact that Jenkins is frequently deployed well off the ball, being asked to play passive containment. It never occurs to Wagoner that this is a deployment precisely designed to get the worst out of Jenkins.

He can’t make the splash plays from 8 yards back.

And he will be severely tempted to cheat up … increasing the chances of him getting burned.

Jenkins plays best in the WR’s pocket. He isn’t played there. And people wonder why he doesn’t maximize his talent.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 4 months ago by rfl.

I’d put it like this.

JL is a lynchpin, a central cog in a defensive synergy. That’s his great strength. And it offers tremendous value.

However, he is not in himself an impact player. Never has been and never will be.

Which means the only way he can make a noteworthy impact is through the defense gelling and offering an impactful synergy.

This has never happened. Except perhaps in spurts here and there.

Now, to be fair to JL, he has probably played a key role in maintaining a generally competent level of performance on the only unit that has shown much in years of team ineptitude. And yet, the other side of that coin is the fact that his defenses have been appallingly porous against the run in major stretches of all the seasons since he arrived. Under different coaching staffs and playing with differing personnel. For a MLB playing with generally good DLs, that’s telling.

Anyway, we can appreciate the role JL plays while recognizing that there are impact MLBs who would probably do nearly as much through individual play. And given who he is as a player, he can never get his due until the defense he generals on the field actually becomes a consistently competitive unit.

JL can’t make that happen. If he could, he would have done so. If he hasn’t done it yet, he won’t ever make it happen. He remains dependent on all sort of variables and performances by the guys who can make an impact.

zn wrote:

Coming at No. 17 represents a five-spot fall for the Rams, a slip that comes mainly as a result of a drop in the rankings of front office and coaching and, to a lesser degree, drafting.

You know, I glanced at this the other day and thought it was a typically silly article.

Idly reviewing it a moment ago, I noticed the above. And damned if I don’t have a respect for the article.

I think there’s a general consensus around the league and among pundits that our roster has improved and there are pieces that suggest high possibilities. Last year, we were pretty widely seen as a team on the rise. And our talent may be better this year.

The ISSUE, the biggest reason to doubt this team, is the recent track record of Fisher’s leadership. It has not been good.

Trouble is, Fisher has had a deeply grounded reputation for being a top shelf coach. For years. He’s been an influential guy, routinely assumed to be a good coach. When he came to us, the universal reaction was that he would raise the team. Its talent level was low when he came, but I think everyone figured he would start lifting its competitiveness. I know I did.

Now, I dunno who the “NFL Insider Team” is, really, or how connected they are. But here’s a way one could read Wagoner’s description of the drop in expectations about the team:

* Last year, people looked at the improvements in ’13 and figured that in Year III, Fisher would pull the team together and consolidate the competitiveness that we had been showing in brief stretches during years I and II.
* Then, the season started. Bradford was hurt, but any neutral observer looking at the first 6 weeks of our season would be wondering who was coaching the mess?
* The disappointment would have focused most tellingly on our defense. Everyone could see the talent, everyone knew who Quinn had been the year before, and the explosiveness of the DL. But its performance was so erratic, so ill-disciplined … this is the best Fisher and Williams could do?
* Then came the late season improvement, several weeks of brilliance, albeit against poor teams. And, again, if you’re a neutral observer, you have to wonder how a coaching staff led by a guy with Fisher’s reputation could fail so miserably to have activated that defense’s capacities for a third of the season.
* So this year, if you’re a neutral observer, you figure the talent level has at least held pretty steady if it hasn’t improved slightly. Apply Fisher’s traditional reputation, and you’d probably project a team knocking on the door of contention … AS PEOPLE DID LAST YEAR!
* But, Fisher’s reputation is not where it was. People figure he got less from that team last year than he was expected to. And they aren’t sure that he won’t under-perform again this year. His track record shows a lot of mediocre years with a couple of anomalies. Maybe that’s who he is. Neutrals are not going to repeat the mistake of predicting contention for a team led by a coach whose team was a competitive shambles last year.

OK. I know. This is pretty much my definition of the Rams’ situation, and you probably figured I’m projecting it into a couple of ambiguous and indeterminate sentences. Your reading of those sentences and of the team probably differ.

But I do think that Wagoner is indicating that Fisher’s reputation has dipped.

And I strongly suggest that, thinking of next year, you temper your expectations of what our talent can do by an awareness that coaching matters and that Fisher’s coaching of the Rams has not in 3 years demonstrated the ability to lift the team’s competitiveness to the kind of consistent level that a team needs to be any better than a mediocre.450 or .500 team. It needs to be a concern … IMO of course.

I have a good feeling about BOTH Foles and Mannion.

Dunno … maybe just wishful thinking. But I like both these guys.

I don’t see “Big Star” in them. I do see competent, solid QBs who can do well on a good team. They have good size, good arms, decent football IQs, and bravery.

I think Foles’ big year with Philly is significant. It doesn’t mean he will play at an All Pro level year after year. It DOES mean that he has the goods to thrive on the field, week after week.

Remember how Austin Davis looked good for a few weeks and then went belly up when the league figured him out? He throve on a narrow bandwidth, and then the league figured out how to shut him down. He was a limited QB playing on a short string. By contrast, Foles got through a full year of superb performance. Yes, he tailed off the next year. But play a high profile full season of QB at NFL-history levels, and that means you got some game.

The next year, his performance tailed off, and then the Philly HC shipped him out of town. How shall we see that? The league caught up to Foles? Or to the system? I’d lean toward the latter.

But then, should we attribute Foles’ success in ’13 to the system, not to him? I think this is tricky. I think it makes sense to attribute the ungodly, historic-level of success to the system. But I don’t think that a poor QB could have kept that system going as long as he did. And remember–I claim nothing more than mid-table level competence. Just a solid, quality QB playing in a system that kept the league hopping for a year.

I also think that Chip Kelly’s decision to ship Foles out don’t necessarily reflect that badly on Foles. Ultimately, I think, Foles’s competitive package doesn’t fit Kelly’s offense that well. On the one hand, this makes his ’13 performance even more remarkable. On the other hand, I think that he will be much better off in the long run playing in a conventional, NFL-style offense. I just see him as the sort of guy who can play well in a traditional scheme with good talent and a stable context. I just see him as a guy who can be a step up from a limited but competent “game manager” guy. I just have a feeling he can be better than mid-table. I have a good feeling about the guy.

As for Mannion, the stuff I’ve read suggests the same sort of potential. I see him as an excellent, bargain-priced prospect for development.

I am also not convinced by the arguments that dismiss the running game. Football is football. You can’t tell me that a quality running game won’t take pressure off the QB and enhance a generally sound passing game. A sound, NFL-quality QB playing with a productive running game and with pretty good WRs can do very well. Think of Carson Palmer. He’s not a true star. But in a good situation–as with Arians at AZ–he can be pretty damn effective. I don’t see why Foles and/or Mannion can’t do something similar.

The issue here is synergy. Effective OC + running game + sound WRs and TEs + sound OL + solid QB = a potent offense which, coupled with a really good defense, can do something in the league. I think Foles and Mannion will hold up their part of the challenge. So, is the rest in place?

Well we all know the answer. The RBs and TEs are there. The OL is a big question mark. We know all of that.

I would say that I like our WR corps. I like the size of Britt and Quick. And Bailey’s route running. (Tavon’s a wild card–whatever he might provide would be a bonus. I don’t really count on anything from him.) And you know I’ve never worried about our OC under Fisher.

Assuming the OL is sound–a BIG assumption–the pieces are there for a really positive offensive synergy. It will be up to the coaches to bring the OL up to the mark and to transform potential into productivity. And I just feel that, in that formulation, Foles and/or Mannion would be better than OK.

Just a feeling, based on pretty inadequate information. We’ll see, won’t we?

wv wrote:

Ok, well i agree with your big point that you have to judge the coach AFTER factoring
in the injury situation — In principle, sure, i agree with that. But I also think its REAL
HARD to figure out what a team’s ceiling is, if say, the OLine AND the starting QB are injured.

It’s a good point. Of course, all assessments are pretty subjective. In the end, we all make judgments about performance, measuring it against some sense of a relevant standard.

I guess that’s why I cite evidence that seems to me to be fair. You’ve heard the list. But if I cite the lack of preparedness at the beginning of the season, the brilliant DL that could not get a sack, the repeated collapses from winning positions that one would normally think of as pretty safe … I feel like those are pretty good indicators.

Did Fisher coach intelligently last year? I dunno. He certainly didn’t understand that GW was throwing too much at the young defense.

Seems to me that you’ve provided your own evidence here. Fisher hired GW, watched him coach a seriously under-performing defense through pre-season, and then waited 4-5 games to do much about it. Isn’t that an indictment in itself–your indictment? And how do we know that whatever our ceiling is won’t be subverted AGAIN this year by poor preparedness or a DC who doesn’t get how to use his players?

I agree with you about our talent.

But I have yet to see Fisher effectively lead our Rams to play disciplined, competitive football more than a few times a year and long after we’d fallen out of the race. I’ll trust him when I see him start to get a handle on the team’s competitiveness.