zn wrote:

For example (rhetorical question), how well would the defense do in 99 if they lost all but say one of the DL players? Carter out, Wistrom out, Agnew out.

Not sure we are communicating on this.

I never mean to disregard injuries. Indeed, I consider them crucial.

All I am saying is that a staff and a team need to be judged according to whatever potential remains AFTER the injury. In the case you mention here, obviously, we would not have won a ring. And that would not have been Vermiel’s responsibility. Our ceiling would have been lowered.

All I have ever argued is that you CAN hold coaches and players responsible for competing as well as they can with whatever talent and firepower they have available. Take your scenario. Would we have seen the remnants of that defense playing their asses off or lying down and succumbing? A coaching staff is responsible to lead the team to do the former.

Which was the whole point of Vermeil’s famous remark about playing good football with Kurt after Green went down. And that’s what coaches and players always say about injuries. The remaining guys need to step up and compete their asses off. Take things as far as they can.

As I say over and over, I don’t essentially hold Fisher responsible for the W/L record. I hold him responsible for fielding a team not ready to compete, given its potential and capabilities before and after injuries. I don’t see how anyone can feel that he got the best of what that team was capable last year AFTER the injuries are factored in.

wv wrote:

Well, I am pretty patient in general. So there’s that.

But as for your example….I just cant conceive of that actually happening. I mean with the talent this team
has the only thing that will derail it, imho is injuries. I just reject the idea that they could stay healthy and STILL lose. I cannot even imagine that.

If it happens then, I guess I will be….nonplussed.

w
v

You know, I actually think we agree on this. At least fundamentally.

My emphasis would be the responsibility that follows from what you’re saying. Given decent health, then what you are saying is that Fisher & Co. would be RESPONSIBLE for delivering a winning team.

Which is why I would say that, if Fisher manages to achieve what you can’t conceive of, a losing year with good health and this talent, then he surely would deserve to be fired.

Right?

But of course he won’t, given the relocation issue.

wv wrote:

I’d probably give him another year, no matter what.
I just haven’t seen any “Linehan level” bad coaching.

I simply can…not…ignore the Bradford injuries. Two
years in a row. How did Bruce Arians team look
after Carson went down?

Well, of course, we’ve been around this block before. But, a couple of clarifying points.

I don’t see how Linehan is relevant. He shoulda been fired after about 2 weeks. That really was bad coaching. I don’t think anyone would say that Fish is at that level. I certainly don’t.

And I don’t think one needs to ignore the Bradford injuries. That has never been the basis of my complaints. I don’t even blame him for the W/L or playoff results as such.

As I have said, I blame him for failing to lead teams that approach their evident ceiling of competitiveness. I felt I was looking at a team with poor QBing, but which wasn’t approaching its resulting ceiling. As I have argued ad nauseum, the evidence can be found in their poor starts, their erratic performance from a highly talented defense, and, above all, the fact that, even AFTER the injuries, they held and then collapsed from winning positions in several games which would have significantly raised their W/O record. The performances in the DAL and 1st SF games showed a legitimate competitive potential which the team could not sustain long after Sam got hurt.

Anyway, here’s the point. The original question was whether Fish should get more than 1 more year. Now, let’s take your point. Fish deserves a chance to show what he can do with decent QBing through the season. OK. Let’s stipulate that he deserves that.

Alright, give him that year. Let’s say Foles stays healthy and plays decently, at a mid-table level. And let’s say there are no crippling waves of injuries anywhere else … for once.

And let’s say we STILL go 6-10 or 7-9. With all the talent acquisition and raising of the potential ceiling … you would STILL give Fisher ANOTHER year to break out of mediocrity? Really?

You’re a far more patient man than I am.

nittany ram wrote:

If the Rams are moving to LA I think he keeps Fisher through the move no matter what. If the Rams aren’t moving then I think Fisher could very well be fired if they don’t finish at least 9-7.

Yeah this is the thing about this anomalous year. Whether Fish goes or stays is heavily conditioned by the question of whether the team goes back to LA.

Suppose there were no talk of leaving, and the team was still stably set in the community. In that case, without question, he would have to get to a winning mark. I don’t think anyone would say anything different. He would be the definition of a hot seat coach.

But as long as the FO thinks it’s moving–and, really, even if it stays after a tumultuous year with uncertain fan relations–then there is no way he gets fired whatever happens.

Indeed, we come back to what has often been said. A big reason SK hired Fisher was his experience in shepherding a moving team. I don’t think there has been ANY chance of firing Fisher THROUGH the year of the move, or the year that a move is decisively rejected. It just isn’t about field performance right now.

Now. Having said all that …

IN FOOTBALL TERMS … this is simply the last year a FO could endure another mediocre performance that fails to take the step up to fulfillment of potential. If he can’t do it this year and we don’t move, then the FO will be derelict if they keep him on.

Me personally? I’d let him know. Win, baby. Win now. Or we’ll find someone else to give it a whirl.

I think it’s great for everybody.

If the team and player agree on a deal BEFORE the season, they share the risk of injury and performance:

– Foles gets a good payday in case he does poorly or gets hurt. But, the Rams LIMIT their obligation to a rate relatively low for the market, much lower than what they’d face if he has a good season and hits the market.
– And that of course is the other side of the coin. If Foles plays really well, the team gets a big bargain. Meanwhile, Foles has enjoyed the stability of a team and a good contract.

Furthermore, a reasonable contract will be very tradeable, as long as Foles has demonstrated mid-market level performance.

I think a trade gives the Rams ideal flexibility. They’ll have an affordable QB whose track record suggest that he will be AT LEAST mod-table. That gives them a QB floor and trade options.

They have also drafted a guy with a credible chance of developing into something. Having drafted him in a later round, they have him for a bargain price. Two QBs with probably decent performance floors with contracts locked up at affordable levels for years to come.

And both would be cuttable or tradeable if necessary.

I don’t see a down side here. As I’ve said before, I think what Snead has done with our QB position this off season is much better than what I imagined to be likely. I’m skeptical of the OL situation, but the QB slot looks great.

sdram wrote:

Well, one thing I ‘think’ we disagree on is the…oh..I’ll just call it the “trajectory of the defense.”
I saw a team that was lost early on, on defense — but got better. I saw a ‘trajectory of improvement.’
So that is promising, i think. Leads me to be optimistic. I think the D might carry this team further this year
based on what i SAW last year. Were there still problems on defense? — yes, definitely. But the arrow seemed to pointing up.

Yes? No? Not sure ?

Whether or not it’s disagreement, I think we see it differently.

I am often skeptical of “trajectory” arguments in general. I think that, each year, numerous teams are either better or worse than a “trajectory” projection from the previous year would suggest.

More specifically, with this defense, I perceive a big disconnect between talent level and general capability, on one hand, and performance on the other. You know my arguments by heart. But put it this way: like everyone else, I expected a big defensive performance last year and saw it only intermittently.

We did see magnificent defense for a while. It’s tempting to look at that and project great stuff. I want to do that.

But I can’t really do more than hope as long as I have a fundamental doubt about what Williams is going to do with these guys. Again, you know my points. But, for me, unsound leadership can and will subvert the unit’s potential.

And I am not convinced by the season-improvement meme. Unlike many, perhaps by myself, I felt I was seeing a significant and disturbing reversion to poor form from the AZ II game on. That team was on its 4th QB, but we let them run the ball just well enough to freeze us out and score the points they needed to win. We didn’t give up much, but then, applying what Ram fans want to say about the challenge of injured QBs, I think we gave up too much. The NYG game was a fiasco, and the final, SEA game was no better than mediocre. Does that add up to a trajectory of improvement? I dunno.

Give us a sound DC and I’d be confident of a Top 8 performance or better, whatever our offense was doing.

Now, MAYBE GW can have one of his good years. If so, great. But I won’t believe in his defense until I SEE him addressing his own egotistical failures to maximize his assets and minimize his liabilities. I am very dubious about him and believe that lousy DC performance will undermine our D and again frustrate hell out of us.

When I see us consistently battling the run and challenging the short, possession throw, I’ll get excited. Never saw that last year. Without that … no very convincing improvement.

These are very surprising and interesting developments. Especially these two:

6. Dave Peacock has hinted that the Rams might stay in St. Louis without Stan Kroenke.
7. Dave Peacock has also indicated that there are potential buyers for the Rams in St. Louis.

Might that mean that SK would buy the Raiders and move them to LA? Hmmmmmm …

What I care about is team stability. If somehow BY AUGUST there might be strong indications of the team staying, then we might have a chance at fan support for the team in this crucial transitional year. That’d be very cool.

zn wrote:

I happen to think that any viable NFL system can be executed well. So I am not big on choosing among systems. In many different discussions over the years, what often appear to some to be inherent and fatal system flaws will then, on the field, work fine…I’ve seen that happen over the years. Though I would be silly to promise that because I would have to see it myself before I thought that had happened.

Having said that, it is common for people to resist Wms. because he appears to be too risky. My own feeling is that they have to work on execution more than anything. I felt the same way about the offense.

OK, I’ll just try this one more time.

My beef is not with blitzing per se. As I have repeated ad nauseum, I was impressed with the AZ DC who called a very aggressive game with lots of blitzes BUT played a sound deployment at the same time. In the Ram games, I never saw him sacrifice good coverage of the field for his blitzes and he blitzed like crazy.

I’m not arguing that a blitzing defense is a bad thing. I’ve never said that and never intended it. I would never begin to say that a particular NFL system can’t be executed well, or that we need to have 1 system over another. It’s fine for you to say you don’t like that kind of thing if you want to. I don’t really see how those comments, however, respond to what I have been saying.

I have made very specific arguments, and I am NOT interested in meta-discussions about different perspectives or many different discussions over the years or arguments I haven’t made. I don’t care about all of that.

When I complain about Williams’ blitzing it is NOT just about blitzing as such. It’s about specific things. It’s about our superb D Front which is negated when a QB can unload a ball easily in 1.5 seconds because the WRs are left wide open. Ag puts it this way:

what about not blitzing and trying to cover for the first 2 seconds? Let 4 players rush and try to force the QB to throw the ball quickly. I think we have the players to do that.

We do have the players for that. If they get a chance. But we have a DC who could not figure out how to get Quinn and the others a bit of time to get to the QB for a freaking 1/4 of the season. That is criminal negligence in strategic terms. It is about a DC who could not recognize and get value from his best asset apparently until the HC told him to change course. You don’t negate that very specific criticism by ignoring it and saying that any system can work.

And, you know, I would argue that the problem IS NOT that Williams is risky. I don’t think I’ve ever said he was. I would argue that he played scared last season. He blitzed aggressively. But, he played his DBs so far back that the chance of getting burned deep was (or should have been) reduced. Typically, a blitzing defense takes chances by playing aggressive, man coverage behind the blitz. Williams did NOT do that. He played loose deep and aggressively up front.

To me, that’s an incoherent “system” at odds with itself. Conceding the quick throw while blitzing is a self-defeating tactic, a pair of mutually contradictory deployments. It’s what I mean by being unsound.

And, paradoxically, I think it does lead to the big play at times. Especially when you have an itchy CB like JJ. JJ’s instincts are to come up and challenge the short throw. He struggles to have the discipline to sit back and contain. So he bites up and gets burned deep. And he’s our most gifted DB. Notice that Gaines, who has less physical talent, played smarter and with more discipline and made fewer mistakes. As a rookie.

Now, about JJ, you qualified his problems: “unless he learns.” Well, OK. Sure. He might learn. The point is that he was being deployed last year AGAINST his strengths and instincts. I think that over the years we have called for DCs and OCs to recognize and use their players’ strengths. Williams at least SHARES the responsibility for an itchy player’s big mistakes when deploying him against his instincts. Again, a specific criticism. Not a system criticism.

And, once again, I resist the idea of focusing on big mistakes and on its corollary, the notion that our problem last year was taking risks. I don’t think that was the problem.

For every one big play we gave up, there were 5-6 1st downs conceded with soft or unsound deployment. We “couldn’t get off the field.” That’s a specific problem quite different from big plays. And in my mind it’s far more damaging. Let a QB get comfortable pitching and catching and you concede the game’s momentum. In those games where we gave up leads, we did it not just with a few big plays, but with cheap, soft concessions of yardage and 1st downs.

I’ve already talked about one big reason–the soft deployments of the DBs. But there’s another.

I cringe thinking about the numerous concessions of runs that hurt us. A few were big plays. Others were just, say, 14 yards and new downs. Sometimes the problem lay in guys getting blocked. That’s a problem in itself. Can our front 7 learn to fight the running game more consistently?

But a lot of it goes back to deployments. And again the comparison with the AZ guy is telling. Unlike AZ, we were frequently caught in some exotic rotation which left big seams, 2 guys covering half the field, etc. When you actually look at some of those plays, it is obvious why the runs worked. Our guys were unsoundly deployed. In order to show some creative blitz pattern. Which Couldn’t work with the DBs playing off. Or would give up the run with ease.

We conceded so many 1st downs, so many yards early in the season, then somewhat less, then again at the end. It’s one thing getting beat. It’s another when the door just opens and an opponent is invited to romp. That’s why they say, “that was too easy.”

Of course, one can simply say, “all of that is down to guys making mistakes.” OK. As for me, the notion that a defense as talented as ours was allowed to make SO MANY MISTAKES throughout pre-season games and far enough into the season to leave us in a deep, deep hole … and that it was just about mostly veteran players making mistakes in a new system … well, to me that’s simply letting the coaching staff off the hook.

Now, of course, ZN, you see these things differently. That’s of course fine. But I’m frankly not interested in meta-commentary that dismisses the specific, clear arguments, I’ve tried to make.

All of this started when WV said “hey, the big plays will be down and that’ll make a difference” and I simply offered a few reasons to question that assumption. WV will continue to see what he sees and to testify to it. I will do the same.

Agamemnon wrote:

I think it is more high risk medium reward. I think he takes unnecessary risks. I think the Rams were second on percentage of blitzes. I don’t think it is the best strategy to do that when you can generate the pass rush we can with just our front four. He could get almost the same effect by faking the blitz. imo

I believe in being aggressive. But,I don’t like to make plays that can lose the game but not win it. I think this is the type of mistake that Williams tends to make.

Well said.

As I’ve said before, Williams commented when he first arrived about the Rams having more firepower up front than he’d ever had before. He said something–can’t remember what–about how he’d need to adjust.

He didn’t. In fact, the defense he took over with a feared front 4 coming off an impressive number of sacks the year before, set an NFL record for fewest sacks over the first quarter of the season. To me, that adds up to a historically poor job of a new DC ruining the team’s best asset. In the public eye–pundits and fans–he largely got away with it. Very little effort to hold him responsible. At the same time that Schotty was being widely blamed for a struggling offense playing with marginal talent at QB and a lousy OL.

I wholly agree that GW takes unnecessary risks. I agree that there is a difference between sound and reckless aggressiveness. As I’ve pointed out before–the AZ DC, who I think might have moved on?–is very aggressive with his blitzes. But he covers up behind them and always runs a sound defense. The difference between his soundness and GW’s rashness seemed to me to be very evident in our games with AZ last year.

Anyway, to return to the original subject, I think that big play concessions are closely related to general system unsoundness. That’s why I tried to push the discussion past that factor.

Of course, the O giving up so many scoring plays … well, what can we say about that? Hope it doesn’t happen again.

wv wrote:

If they only eliminate the big melt-down plays, i think they can get three or four more wins.

Now, to be a real threat to win it all ? — Sure they’d have CONSISTENTLY stop the run, etc, and so forth.

So, I doubt we really disagree on this.

Well, that’s interesting. Perhaps we don’t disagree.

It’s good to hear acknowledgements of the problems beyond big plays. I guess I’d suggest that …

First, big plays have a way of arising FROM more systemic problems. Are the big plays isolated or are they symptoms of deeper problems. I’d tend to lean toward the the latter.

Second, I am skeptical of the notion that changing a play or two will alter a result. Of course, a big play at the end of the game with no time left can be decisive. But I am very skeptical that reversing a bad big play early in a game can turn an L into a W.

Consider the SF game when we gave up the bomb before the half. The play was a turning point, no doubt. But the fact that 1 1st half play which left us still in the lead (if I recall correctly) killed us–a fact none of us denies–is only possible if a team is really, really vulnerable in all sorts of ways that are systemic. And those systemic weaknesses are still there, whether or not the big play happens. Suppose that play didn’t occur, but SF moved the ball and got a FG. They get a bit of momentum, albeit less dramatically, we lose it, and the 2nd half is still a disaster. Could that have happened?

Sure. Notice, I am not arguing it WOULD have happened. It might not have. But it’s the sort of thing that unsound teams experience all the time. Who knows?

I am just saying I am skeptical of looking at a game, taking out a big play, and deciding what the results woulda been. That just seems pretty questionable.

What I would RATHER talk about is changing the soundness of our units’ performances. Soundness. Not perfection. Not necessarily being elite. Just playing tough, sound, competitive football. I find it much more likely that that change would lead to more wins than a hope that we avoid bad big plays. I would personally prefer a discussion on those levels. I’d like to see the board discuss, “what are the odds that the defense can learn to A) defend the run soundly and consistently, B) challenge opposition receivers enough to give our pass rush time to work, and C) get off the field on 3rd downs? Those seem to me more substantive issues on which to consider the odds of improvement.

I guess if there is disagreement, it’s disagreement on where the focus and emphasis of the discussion should be. If that makes any sense.

Um, the failures of the defensive unit last year were NOT just about big plays. They just weren’t.

Beginning in training camp and continuing through the first quarter of the season, the defense couldn’t get off the field for long stretches. They couldn’t get to the QB. They played soft coverage and conceded possession throw after possession throw with minimal resistance.

They also couldn’t stop the run for long stretches at a time. Not just a few big runs, but repeatedly. Soft deployments, conceded running lanes.

The thesis that the problem lay just in a few anomalous big plays simply does not account for the facts.

My perception and memory, of course. But I’m pretty confident in my memory of all this. I certainly posted about it all obsessively enough. I understand that my view is out of step with the loose consensus on the board. But I simply feel it’s important to attest to patterns of breakdown that were pretty debilitating.

I know I’m tiresome on all of this, but last year SHOULD teach us a lesson. Honestly. It should.

This group vacillated wildly last year. It started out inept. Improved, then played lights out, then faded again.

What do we learn from this? Two things.

One: they have the potential to be elite, perhaps historically good. Very few defenses have a ceiling high enough to play as they did for 2 games last year.

Two: they have a long way to go to overcome the ill discipline that have frequently led to pathetic performances. They have rarely lived up to all that potential.

This means that this group could end up anywhere on a continuum from 1st to, say, 18th or so. The results depend on a number of variables. I don’t see how any observer could at this point say much about where on that continuum we’ll end up.

By the way, while I agree that the offense has a part to play, I don’t feel it’s crucial. Truly great defenses don’t need all that much help from their offenses to reach the Top Five.

zn wrote:

EARTH CITY, Mo. — As the St. Louis Rams prepare to officially open organized team activities Tuesday, they do so knowing exactly what they have coming back on defense.

I don’t. Know, that is.

I mean, I know what our talent level is. I know what the bunch can do at their best.

But, as Wagoner’s piece makes clear, that defense last year was profoundly erratic. You never knew, week to week, what defense you’d be seeing. As, indeed, the NYG game proved.

To me, it all comes down to one variable: Williams’ ego.

If he realizes he has a pass rush built in and plays to stress QBs’ reads rather than to prove how creative his blitzes are, we’ll be damn good.

But I don’t really trust him to do that. At least not consistently. Our Defense really should be good. But it could be elite and it could be top half. And it could win games or piss them away by yielding soft yards and points.

zn wrote:

“It’s not a young team any more,” Laurinaitis said. “It might be young still by age, but there’s a lot of experience out there, a lot of guys that have played a lot of minutes. And so the expectations are going to be extremely high.”

He got that right.

Anyone talking about us being a “young team” this year should be horsewhipped. Except for the OL.

There is no excuse for the defense not to be Top Ten and threatening the Top 5. It’s on Williams to recognize the strength of the unit, play to that strength, and break offenses with it. If he can’t get it done, he’ll need to go.

And of course it’s up to Fisher to make all this clear to Williams.

I am not optimistic about what Williams will do with a superb D front that last year he showed he didn’t know how to use.

Nervous.

Look. It’s a big bet. Pretty impossible to tell how it will work out:

* Robinson is proven capable in the run game, but questionable in pass blocking. He’s athletic, but you cannot count on a LOT until he begins to demonstrate the real stuff.

* H.stein is a rookie. His power blocking is likely to be very good. He’s smart and compensates well. His athleticism is limited. And he has never faced NFL DLs.

What does that add up to?

And we will be highly suspect at OC and at LG.

I have a hard time believing that an OL this green will gel before the end of the year. And, I cannot believe it’s more than a toss up that THESE lower round OL are the right picks. With not one premier talent picked early.

It’s a big bet. Enormous.

But, I am convinced that the FO has known for months that it would not sign more vet FAs on the OL. They were NOT going to sign JB or anyone else … except a swing guy as backup and for emergencies. Why?

Because they’ve committed to home-growing a young OL. JB or Blalock (sp?) would be obstacles to their development. I think it’s pretty clear: draft 4-5 power OL, throw them into the fire, and figure that at least 2 get it done. And trust one of the 3 youngsters to develop at OC.

Quit hoping for vet FA OL, guys. That’s not the plan. You can really see, looking back, that it was never their plan this off season.

What to do with that cap money?

I bet they spend it on defense.

PA Ram wrote:

This is definitely a throwback to the old Rams teams.

They’ve done it with the GSOT.

This is more of a ground and pound.

It should be fun. Can’t wait.

Of course, the ideal would be a balanced blend of the 2.

All of us old farts remember how frustrating the 70s and 80s Rams were with everything but a QB. I used to be so proud of our lines, our running game, our defenses … and so frustrated that we had to settle for Dieter Brock or aging has beens at QB.

Actually, of course, with Marshall, the GSOT was far more about running than people remember.