Brian Schottenheimer Is Not the Problem

[Alan]

moklerman apportioning blame:
Sure, the Eagles have had struggles but their losses shouldn't fall on Sanchez IMO. He's playing better than Foles was this year and he's playing much better than he was in NY.

Judging by the games I've seen there defeats can blamed on their lack of a defense. One of the worst in the league IMO.

 

[moklerman]

I didn't say the Eagles' losses should fall on Sanchez, I didn't say *he* isn't getting it done, and I didn't compare him to Foles.

I'm sure glad I could be people's platform for saying what they wanna say regardless of the points I'm making.

I must have misunderstood what you meant by this:

Bottom line is, he isn't getting it done for Chip Kelly either.

 

[Alan]

-X- with this:
I'm sure glad I could be people's platform for saying what they wanna say regardless of the points I'm making.

When I read this "Sure, the Eagles have had struggles but their losses shouldn't fall on Sanchez IMO. He's playing better than Foles was this year and he's playing much better than he was in NY." I thought he was just adding in that thought and not a response to what you said.

Could be wrong but that's how I read it.

 

[iced]

Campbell Weeden and Hoyer? Yeah, I guess it's the coodinator's fault that all 3 can't play QB very well. And Norv Turner never really had a good offense before, right? All you did right there was prove what I'm saying (and what Fassel recently said). You want to be a good coordinator? Have good players.

Turner's actually a pretty good offensive coach....

And it's not as simple as "having good players" - Linehan didn't know how to use this team, but the moment he turned play calling over to Olsen the offense floundered.. There are a million examples of one coach getting more out of the same players than another.

And I'm tired of hearing him get all the blame. SUPER tired of hearing the no-adjustment argument. Name me the times he doesn't do it, and then prove it. Just because an offense doesn't get going, doesn't mean there are no adjustments. Adjustments happen by the minute. It's not a switch you flip or a page you turn in a playbook.

Really? This team is one of, if the not the worst team in scoring in the 3rd quarter and 2nd half. How many times do we have a fast start, then the offense fails to adjust to the defense.

 

[-X-]

I must have misunderstood what you meant by this:

You must have. My point was, no coordinator is going to light it up (unless you think 3-4 is lighting it up) with Sanchez as their QB.

 

[-X-]

Turner's actually a pretty good offensive coach....

And it's not as simple as "having good players" - Linehan didn't know how to use this team, but the moment he turned play calling over to Olsen the offense floundered.. There are a million examples of one coach getting more out of the same players than another.

I know Turner's a good coach. And he was MUCH better when he had good QBs like Aikman, Brad Johnson, and Phillip Rivers. Not so much when he has Brandon Weeden, Jason Campbell, and now a rookie in Bridgewater. That's the correlation I'm referring to. Like I said, you and I can find examples to prove our points all day long, but it's not germane to the point I'm making. The QBs Schottenheimer has had to work with (and not work with) are some of the most glaring reasons why his game plans aren't as awesome as people would like. Bradford had his best stats while under Schottenheimer, so who knows how that would turn out if he stayed healthy?

Really? This team is one of, if the not the worst team in scoring in the 3rd quarter and 2nd half. How many times do we have a fast start, then the offense fails to adjust to the defense.

Why do we have to adjust if what we're doing is working? My point is (and this is echoed by coaches everywhere), nobody knows when adjustments are taking place, and if they are or are not being executed correctly. If the offense is one of the league's fastest teams in the first half, then how can he be a bad coordinator? One could easily argue that our defensive coordinator isn't adjusting, or that the opposing defensive coordinator is. It's simple. All you have to do is show specific examples of how Schottenheimer doesn't adjust his game plan during the course of the game. Points aren't indicative of that, IMO. That's a crutch. But if that's what you want to use to illustrate your point, then I'm fine with that. We don't have to see this eye to eye.

 

[jrry32]

Really? This team is one of, if the not the worst team in scoring in the 3rd quarter and 2nd half. How many times do we have a fast start, then the offense fails to adjust to the defense.

Maybe the alternative is that us scoring early is an indication of how good he is when it comes to scripting plays and our struggles later on indicate that once DCs catch up and adjust to what we're doing, we don't have the talent to overcome it.

 

[jrry32]

Fair enough. And for the record, I haven't given up on Austin. I just don't know what his niche is yet, and I don't think the coaches do either. Greg Cosell recently said in an interview that he thinks Tavon needs to focus on being a receiver and not a gadget player. I'm pretty sure he meant that the coaches need to focus on that, but I'm not entirely sure. The rationale being, he's gonna get pigeon-holed as a gadget player (HB, PR, KR, X, Y, Z) and won't be afforded the time and resources needed to hone his craft as a receiver only. It's happened to a lot of players over the years who had incredible speed and athleticism. I tend to agree with him in that they need to stick him on the outside and let him work on a specific set of routes that utilize his speed and cutting ability. And of course let him return punts, but that's about it as far as extra stuff goes.

I don't think Tavon is there as a WR yet. But he's getting there. I am seeing him separate more with his routes. The biggest issue right now is that our ability to use crossing routes with Tavon is hindered due to his height. You need a tall QB to get it over the DL if there's not a lane and we don't have one right now.

 

[mr.stlouis]

We can do this all day, dude. I can name dozens upon dozens of coaches who did poorly without their QB, but my point wasn't about league trends. It's about who Schotty had to work with during his time as an offensive coordinator.

Can't make chicken soup with chicken feathers, I agree.

We have been deprived of a starting QB for a season and a half now.

 

[dieterbrock]

Sure, the Eagles have had struggles but their losses shouldn't fall on Sanchez IMO. He's playing better than Foles was this year and he's playing much better than he was in NY.

He has contributed to the losses though, and his turnovers have been painful.
His stats were good in his last game, but he threw the game costing INT and his first Q fumble gave up the lead.
Against Dallas (2 int) and Seattle (Only 96 yards passing) he was dreadful

 

[-X-]

He has contributed to the losses though, and his turnovers have been painful.
His stats were good in his last game, but he threw the game costing INT and his first Q fumble gave up the lead.
Against Dallas (2 int) and Seattle (Only 96 yards passing) he was dreadful

DAFUQ is going on around here today? I didn't say this thing you're quoting below.

I'm going to Dairy Queen. Fuck y'all.

 

[dieterbrock]

DAFUQ is going on around here today? I didn't say this thing you're quoting below.

I'm going to Dairy Queen. freak y'all.

I have no idea, I thought I was quoting Moklerman
Fixed

 

[-X-]

I have no idea, I thought I was quoting Moklerman
Fixed

Great. Now I can enjoy my snack from Dairy Queen.

 

[iced]

I know Turner's a good coach. And he was MUCH better when he had good QBs like Aikman, Brad Johnson, and Phillip Rivers. Not so much when he has Brandon Weeden, Jason Campbell, and now a rookie in Bridgewater. That's the correlation I'm referring to. Like I said, you and I can find examples to prove our points all day long, but it's not germane to the point I'm making. The QBs Schottenheimer has had to work with (and not work with) are some of the most glaring reasons why his game plans aren't as awesome as people would like. Bradford had his best stats while under Schottenheimer, so who knows how that would turn out if he stayed healthy?

Josh Gordon didn't seem to mind which QB he had throwing to him..

Now they can't even get him going..
Again, scheme or QB? had the same QB as last year... gordon also averaged as many if not more yards per game than Calvin Johnson did when he hit 2k...

We don't have to see this eye to eye.

I don't expect to one this one

 

[CGI_Ram]

In 9 seasons, Brian Schottenhiemer has proven to simply be the most unlucky offensive coordinator in the NFL.

I believe our window is opening and our D looks worthy of a deep playoff run.

I don't know what to think about the offense except it worries me (based on that record).

 

[-X-]

Josh Gordon didn't seem to mind which QB he had throwing to him..

lol. You're fucking exhausting. Like a game of broken telephone.

Someone starts by saying "Schottenheimer" and then it gets around to you....
"Josh Gordon."

 

[A.J. Hicks]

Schotty actually called a pretty good game yesterday.

 

[jrry32]

Didn't we just lose a game to the Cards where in we didn't allow a TD? That right there invalidates your premise (A winning defense.) doesn't it? Are you talking to me or a wider audience? Because if you're talking to me using prejudicial wording like "There isn't a person in the world" is not only laughably incorrect, it's ineffective as an argument with me. In addition jrry, let's try and stay on the same page here OK? When did we start talking about what it takes to win games rather than what demonstrates/indicates a top ten D? We can have that discussion during the off season when we have nothing else to talk about. In the meantime, let's stick with stats that indicate you have a top 10 D or not OK?

No, it doesn't. Our defense gave up 12 points in that game. We lost because of our offense. I can find examples of offenses that scored 45 points and lost...that doesn't mean that an offense that put up 45 points isn't a winning offense. You keep the offense out of the end-zone and you'll win at least 9 out of every 10 games. Looking for the exception doesn't invalidate that point.

We are on the same page here. I'm talking about what makes a top defense. And a top defense is made by keeping the other team off the scoreboard. Because that's where the games are won and lost. Different defenses have different philosophies which will affect yard per game numbers. But in the end, what truly matters is how many points you gave up. If you run a bend but don't break defense, you'll give up yardage. But as long as you keep the other team from turning that yardage into points, you'll be successful.

Defensive Points Per Game Allowed is the best indicator of a top defense. Because points win games and points lose games. And ultimately, that's the objective...to win. Give the defense that best accomplishes that objective.

This question, "So let me ask you a question, Alan...which defense would you rather have..." is off subject, prejudicial, allows for for only one correct answer and has nothing to do with whether or not you're a top 10 D. I'll be happy to answer it by rephrasing your question so as to eliminate the cherry picked stats that only allow for one reasonable answer.

It seems to me that you're refusing to answer the question because it doesn't jive with your opinion. Denver is #3 in yards per game allowed. Arizona is #4 in points per game allowed. Neither are top 10 in the other category(Arizona is #24 in yards per game allowed and Denver is #12 in points per game allowed). And yet you're telling me that there's one reasonable answer.(which I'm assuming is Arizona...but I could be assuming wrong)

That says all we need to know. It was a very relevant question. Don't refuse to answer a real world application of what you're discussing because you don't like the answer. That might alert you to a flaw within your stance.

I'd rather have a defense that allows 150 total yards and gives up only 7 points versus a defense that allows 397 yards and gives up only 7 points. Keeping the Broncos to only 7 points while giving up that many yards may win you an occasional game but in the long run it's a losing D. Giving up only 150 yards would indicate that for that game at least, your D was dominating, made very few mistakes and undoubtedly a top 5 D that week. Giving up 397 yards and only 7 points says nothing to me about the quality of your D except that you were very lucky to have given up only 7 points. Speaking "purely statistically" I'd rather have the 150 yard D for sure. So would you. In your scenario there is only one answer due to your wording but when you say "purely statistically" you need to identify which stat you prefer and I prefer total yards and not total points given up. That's if I'm trying for a top 10 D and not worrying about wins and losses of course because I'm sticking to our original disagreement.

Except we weren't lucky. We gave up that many yards and the Broncos never once got into the red-zone. That's not luck, Alan. That just tells you the flaws of a yardage stat.

But your comparison here isn't relevant. The question isn't, is yardage the best indicator of a defense's quality if they give up the same number of points? You're arguing that yardage is a BETTER indicator than points. So you can't claim points are equal. That defeats the purpose. It's like saying, speed is more important than height for a WR. Which would you rather have, a 6'5" WR with 4.3 speed or a 6'5" WR with 4.5 speed? That's not a relevant question. The relevant question would be, which would you rather have, a 6'2" WR with 4.3 speed or a 6'5" WR with 4.5 speed?

So the relevant question here is...would you rather have a defense that gives up 290 yards per game and 20 points per game or a defense that gives up 390 yards per game and 16 points per game?

Me? I'll take the latter. Because I am fine with my defense giving up yardage if they aren't sacrificing points.

Here's what I think the difference is in how we view what a top D is. For me, to allow an opposing O to march down the field and get into scoring position requires many failures to stop their offense from doing what they want to do on each of those 11 plays that lead them to your red zone . Great Ds don't make that many mistakes. If the other team coughs up a fumble or fails to score, due to some good plays by your D (finally) when they get into the red zone I don't consider that to be an indication of a top 10 D. You do. If you're lucky enough to stop them regularly then you'll win a lot of games but we aren't talking about winning or losing we're talking about have a top 10 D and no matter how many times you try to ignore what the rest of the world uses as the measuring stick for that, it's not going to go away just because you disagree with it. Doesn't make you wrong but allowing you to pick your own stat as a measuring stick doesn't make you right either.

Alan, you don't represent the rest of the world. You represent yourself. Stop claiming your opinion as indicative of what everyone else thinks. There is no consensus here.

Here are a couple other stats that might make you rethink your stance...this is how the Rams rank:
Redzone TD% - 44.7%(4th in the NFL)
Redzone Scoring Attempts Per Game - 2.5(2nd in the NFL)
DPPG Allowed - 18.1(6th in the NFL...the 4th and 5th best teams are also allowing 18.1 DPPG)
Non-offensive PPG Allowed - 4.2(32nd in the NFL)

The question is...what does this all mean? Here's what it means...the Rams are 4th best at not allowing teams to score TDs in the Redzone, they're 2nd best at not allowing teams into the Redzone, they're 6th best defensive points allowed, AND they're BY FAR THE WORST in the NFL in terms of number of points scored by opposing defenses or special teams.

So Alan, want to revise your argument? Our defense doesn't allow offenses to march down the field into the Redzone. They're second best in the NFL in that regard.

Our defense is 6th best at keeping opposing offenses off the scoreboard.

However, our offense and special teams combined are the worst in the NFL at doing the same. They have given up nearly 20% of the points scored against our team. For reference, the median NFL team(Atlanta) is at 6%. We're at 18.8%.

Alan, you can fight me on this all you want...our defense gives up yards...but that yardage means nothing. They keep opposing teams out of the Redzone(#2 in the NFL) and they keep them off the scoreboard(#6 in the NFL).

How is that not a top 10 defense? This isn't luck. We've played 15 games.

So to bring this back to the original subject which is whether we have a top 10 D now and will have a top 5 next year, we don't have a top ten D now IMO and we'll not have a top 5 D next year unless we fix some of the problems I mentioned.

Yes, lets go back to the original subject. We do have a top 10 defense. Our defense is 2nd best in the NFL at keeping teams out of the Redzone, they're 4th best at keeping teams out of the endzone when they get in the Redzone, and they're 6th best at keeping teams off the scoreboard.

Those are the stats that "matter". Because, for defenses, that is what wins your team games and loses your team games. I evaluate a defense based on the job they do. Our defense is willing to give up yardage to keep teams from scoring. And it's obviously working.

Their philosophy not matching up to the way you think things should be done does not preclude them from being a top 10 defense.

Why do you care if they give up yardage if they keep the other team from getting into the Redzone and scoring points?

Yardage means nothing at the end of the day. The winner isn't decided by who has more yards. It is decided by who has more points.

 

[iced]

lol. You're freaking exhausting. Like a game of broken telephone.

Someone starts by saying "Schottenheimer" and then it gets around to you....
"Josh Gordon."

I was also just offering different examples on how the offensive coordinator effects not just the QB but the whole offense

 

[-X-]

I was also just offering different examples on how the offensive coordinator effects not just the QB but the whole offense

I know. You just took me on a ride that I wasn't really trying to take. I just wanted to make the point that having Pennington, Sanchez, Clemens, Hill, Davis, and sometimes Bradford, isn't really conducive to putting together an awe-inspiring offensive scheme. I don't think anyone really disagrees with that, I hope.