Mackeyser wrote:

I love that about Snead.

He’s a guy who will deal so his phone rings.

But… he’s crafty. He can be fair and at the same time, he’ll gouge when it’s time to do it.

I dunno if I’d wanna play poker with him…

I really like Snead. I really do.

That’s a big reason I always object to the “Snisher” meme. I think Snead has been far more consistently productive as a GM over 2.5 years than Fish has as a HC. And I think Snead will be here (or in LA) long after Fish is gone.

There is reason to hope that Snead, a young guy, is settling in to a long term career of excellence in the Ram FO.

In theory, this is an excellent draft. Mac sees the vision behind it, and his posts make a lot of sense.

A fairly common reaction theme from us and from pundits is that this draft is consistent with the Fish vision. I think that’s right and I think it’s important. Indeed, it makes sense to look back at the last 3 years and see a team not wholly inline with its coach’s vision.

I have argued for quite a while that there was a clash between the assumption that Fish was all about power running and the reality of OLs that could not project power. This draft was all about REALIZING that vision of power running, drafting a RB with power and explosiveness and a lot of OL known for power. On paper at least, this draft will provide significant upgrades in our personnel in this regard. And if that is true, then I absolutely agree that our passing game will find it much easier to assert itself.

All of this is crucial. It’s important. It is, I might add, a traditional Ram vision of football. The kind of football I loved as I became a Ram fan. Cool.

But then, all this is theory. Apart from Gurley’s knee–which doesn’t bother me that much–the big question is the obvious one. Did they choose the right guys for the OL?

IF THEY DID … then this is in all respects a brilliant draft. It’s tactically brilliant, as some of the pundits have explained. Recognizing that the needed talent will be there, taking the brilliant RB, then trading back, etc. etc. These tactical moves probably made it possible to grab Mannion, a move I view favorably. He sounds like the right sort of guy to develop for a year or two. And, if we have picked 3-4 OL who A) fit our vision and B) can play, then Mac is right about this being a great draft.

And I’ll even concede one other thing. In a general way, I do support the notion that you can do well with grunt guys on the OL. Indeed, it has been my complaint for a decade that solid grunts are generally available for the OL and we have failed over and over again to get any. I am in general persuaded by the meme that you can get solid OL play from guys whose measurables and strength/weakness ratios don’t top the draft charts. It is PLAUSIBLE to me that we can get some good power out of this group.

But then, the game is played on the field, not on paper. And I think we need to understand that the FO’s plan for the OL continues to have a cost. We continue to face significant challenges on the OL.

1) We are STILL extremely thin on vet OL–not even enough to field 5 starters.

2) There are only, so far as I know, 2 plausible FA vets who could step in, and we may very well not be able to sign either. (We may not want to sign either.)

3) We have a couple younger guys who may project as capable starters but A) have been injury-prone and B) have never looked convincing.

4) #1 – #3 make us–as of now–reliant almost completely on rookies, This draft class HAS to produce guys who can play and be productive virtually immediately.

5) In the draft, we let the name OL pass by and went with grunt guys who are apparently tough, smart, and well coached, but who are apparently all lacking in key athletic dimensions. Especially pass blocking.

Now, these constraints need to be recognized as pretty serious. There’s a lot of risk there. We’re sailing pretty damn close to the wind. When I look at the scouting reports on these guys, I sorta like what I see, but I don’t see anyone who excites me. Looked at individually, I keep thinking, OK, promising, but could be a bust. Each one of them could be a bust, or never better than mediocre. It’s possible that not one of them can really play. I mean, that’s always true, but looking at these scouting reports, I can in each case see the indicators of a possible bust.

And then there is the whole business of pass blocking. I get it. You can have a tough running game and pass off of that. I’m the guy who has written in defense of the notion that the league will and is probably already in process of cycling back toward power running. BUT … you have to pass in the NFL. And that means you have to have an OL that is at least SOUND in its pass blocking. Intelligence, hard work, and preparation will help, especially with a strong running game. But when you have to pass in the clutch with no threat of a run, you have to have competent pass blockers up front. And as far as I can remember, none of these guys is particularly noted for being able to deal with even college-level speed rushes. We MIGHT end up with a tough running game but an OL that simply cannot hold up to passing downs.

OK. There are no guarantees in the draft. We drafted enough smart, tough guys that SOME ought to be able to play. What do I know? The plan makes sense. It’s execution seemed to work out. And we seem to have a big fresh catch of promise on the OL. All of that is heartening.

I just hope that the narrow odds pay off. ‘Cause, trust me, we are flirting with some serious trouble here.

PA Ram wrote:

But when you hear Snead and Fisher talk they seem utterly unconcerned about the line.

PA, we’re on the exact same wavelength on the pick.

But, I actually disagree a bit with the above. I sense a bit of defensiveness in Fisher’s replies.

They have to win this year. And they made a pick that does precious little to help them do so.

So we passed on Cam Erving? A potential long term answer at OC?

My lord, this is dumb.

OK, let’s assume that Tre Mason is a B+/A- RB. Go along with that?

And Let’s stipulate that TG is an A RB. Just imagine that’s so.

Does that make us much better as a team? I don’t see how.

Then there are the injury issues, blah, blah, blah.

None of it offers any qualitative improvement on last year. And, until and unless they sign a couple of FA OL, we’re WORSE OFF than we were last year. At perhaps the most important unit on the field. The one that makes our RBs and Foles and our receivers possible.

All right. Apparently, the draft broke badly for them OK. Whatever, whatever.

But then that’s where the problem lies. This organization–including leadership before Snead and Fisher–has screwed around with the OL for a flaming decade. They’re in a deep, deep hole in that unit. Even Robinson still projects significant question marks. NOWHERE are we clearly sound on the OL. NOWHERE. Out of 5 positions. This off season, they’ve farted around in the vet FA market, with one marginal guy signed. They put themselves in a position where they HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING FROM THE DRAFT on the OL. Cannot afford not to. Years of failure drafting and signing FAs have put them there.

So when the draft goes badly for them on the OL … they are hurting. Badly.

Taken by itself, the pick is probably a positive one. BPA. Generally a sound strategy. But in the wake of the last decade of OL futility, it’s an incipient disaster.

Incipient. Not certain. We do still have some picks and the 2nd wave of FA. But, damn, the percentages of success have shrunk dramatically. There’s a helluva lot of pressure to start getting sound bodies and very few opportunities left.

This is what happens when you neglect a unit that represents 22% of your lineup and about 50% of your offensive capability and stack up the depth in already deep areas. You become horribly vulnerable to anything going wrong in that long neglected unit.

This off-season, we’ve needed one thing above all others: substantive improvement in the OL. We’ve done ALMOST nothing to improve a dire situation. That, folks, is sailing damn close to the wind.

Looks like a pan for nice, new digs …

For the Raiders.

Nothing will trump SK’s plan for an NFL home base in Inglewood.

Well this is the 1st time I’ve seen B get the credit he deserves.

The key is the angle of perception. His role is the quiet one … crucial but seldom noticed. What he does makes the other guys’ sacks possible.

wv wrote:

What ‘should’ Fisher say, btw?

w
v

Well. Here’s the thing … IMO.

Fish has one major responsibility: the team. When it comes to players and coaches, he is absolutely right to set it all aside. Don’t ever let it become an issue. Condition his players to never think about it. Focus on playing good football. Disciplined thinking.

Now, Fish does that. Except that he then tends to extend his plea for that mindset to the fans. To ask THEM not to pay attention to the looming betrayal of their hopes.

I don’t have the quotation right now, but Fish recently answered the question of how the fans might be expected to react. He said, as I recall, I would hope that they would come out to enjoy good football and support an improving team.

If I were a PSL holder, I’d be incensed by that blithe expectation that I should set aside my bleak expectations of the team’s betrayal of my trust. That I should support an improving team whose upward trend I won’t be able to enjoy after a decade of support through the morass. That somehow I was responsible to the same code of disciplined tunnel vision regarding the future that is appropriate for the pros getting paid by the team.

Horse manure. A ridiculously insensitive remark.

OK, what should Fish say? Of course, I don’t ask him to betray his trust regarding the team or to undermine the organization. Of course not. Fact is, he shouldn’t say much. If anything at all. He might well decline to comment: You know, it’s a tough situation. We can’t let ourselves get caught up in all that. We just need to focus on our jobs. No harm in that!

If he wanted to refer to the fans, he could, without betraying ownership, throw them a bone of appreciation. Some minimal recognition of the support already received and the difficulty of continuing to support the team. You know, the fans have hung in there through some trying times. We appreciate their patience and support, and we hope they can sticky by us during a challenging year. Whatever happens, we’ll be out there busting our tails for them.

Is that so hard? I don’t think so.

Fish is in a tough spot and he has to put blinkers around the team’s awareness of the situation. But he ought to understand that the fans are NOT bound by any need for discipline, that they are being asked to swallow a pretty crappy sandwich, and that there is no earthly reason why anyone should EXPECT them to support the team this year.

Say nothing about the fans? Fine. Want to say something? Then show them respect. You don;t have to throw Stan under the bus to do that.

wv wrote:

I am less concerned about Barksdale than most, i think.
I really dont care if they resign him — I think he’s pretty ordinary.
I actually wouldnt mind three stud-rookies starting. Or scrounging
for another vet-Olineman and going with two rookies and some other vet.

I know a lot of folks dont want three rookies but I
am more concerned about ‘quality’ than experience
at this point.

w
v

I can see this viewpoint. He is not a special player at all.

But I guess I would stress the risk involved. We are sailing close to the damn wind on the OL. There have been very few decent OL vets available and we’re punting except for the one swing guy. The Rookie field looks like it’s deep. But, again, the risk. Rely on 3 rooks and you’d better have hit on all 3!

The other thing is the cap space. If we won’t use the cap space we got for Sam on a good OL, then I wonder why we made the trade.

I think the point ultimately is that, right now, we do not have even decent answers at 3 OL positions. The situation is dicey. As I’ve said before, they almost surely have a plan. But it’s a damn risky plan.

Well said, Herzog. As is clear from my posts, I share your concerns about Williams.

wv wrote:

Can you just imagine
how Grits would feel if
the Rams and Chargers both
moved to LA.

O my.

Is there a word beyond ‘ecstatic’ ?

w
v

LOL

Where is the lad?

Just listened to it. They had a pre-recorded section and a recent one. A bit hard to figure nout what they think now.

In terms of predictions, I think they are too optimistic about …

1. The problem Kroenke will have with Spanos & Davis and the Old Boys Club among the owners.

2. The league’s necessity of solving the problems at OAK and SD before accommodating Stan.

3. The league’s likely commitment to honoring the StL willingness to build 2 stadia in 20 years.

What Stan is offering in Inglewood, IMO, just bowls over those sorts of principles. Every owner will see what a crown jewel the site will be for the league. Maybe a couple will vote no on principle, but only if the vote is sure otherwise. Then it can be a free, protest vote which won’t stop the train gathering steam.

Ever since I heard about Stan’s vision for the Inglewood site, I figured the Rams would be playing in there. No way to stop it, is my guess.

Of course, this is all speculative prediction. I express no opinion about what SHOULD happen.

I don’t get how these pundits can talk about the off season as though it’s complete.

Mid-term grade? Fine. But there is no qualifier and the verbs are in the past tense.

Consider the Bradford trade. How do you judge it before seeing what we do with the cap space?

And then there is the draft. Grading an off season before the draft is pretty daft.

Pundits …

Well, first of all, I can’t see how simplifying things can make that much of a difference. Unless …

> It’s a transitional thing or …
> You have personnel who somehow need simplicity to thrive.

Or, of course, both. And in both cases, the coaches and coordinators would be responsible for asking “too much” complexity too soon or from players who can’t handle it. Which gets back to me comment on Williams learning to understand what he has … rather late.

2nd, simplifying things ain’t enough. On defense, as I have said 100 times, I think Williams fails to understand the ASSETS he has with a DL that can get to the passer on its own. He actually commented on that last summer, before camp. He said he’d never had that kind of pass rush and might need to adjust. Then he coached our DL to a record level of futility in rushing the passer for, what, 6 games? That’s not necessarily a matter of simplifying. If is a matter of challenging short routes to give the DL time to get to the QB.

On offense, what I think I’m hearing referring to the ways Kendricks and Britt were used has nothing to do with simplicity. Both guys are vets with lots of experience. Both languished in production for various reasons, including the QB issue and also decisions made about how to attack. Kendricks was asked to block while Cook ran routes. Much of the year, Britt was seldom targeted. Simplification doesn’t solve that. Maybe it could help Tavon if he is indeed cognitively slow. But I don’t see how simplification would help our offense all that much or how it would provide hope for more productivity from Kenny or Lance.

As for execution … well, I just fundamentally disagree with anyone saying that the problems we had on D or on O were primarily about execution. Except in the sense that we had substandard OL and QBs playing.

zn wrote:

Fisher says it “would not be inconceivable” for the Rams to draft a DE at 10th pick

I believe him. They just might do this.

They have a track record of trying to transform really good units into transcendently elite forces. And they have subordinated team weaknesses to do so. I think they really believe that 1 elite unit + 1 mediocre unit > 2 pretty good units. I see that in their decisions.

Hope I’m wrong. This team has other needs much greater than more studly DEs.