For those "worried" or "concerned" about the 1s' performance

[12intheBox]

Hey man they went to the playoff the year before and we were coming off a 2-14 season. We only lost by 4.

They went on to post 3 more wins that entire season. Not very many 4-12 teams get called "very good"

 

[fearsomefour]

Isn't Wichmann ahead of Reynolds & playing a good LG ?? Who is better right now . Brown or Wichmann ??

Based on last years play I would say, in order, Reyolds, Wichmann, Saffold and then Brown.
That is just my opinion and who knows what the coaches are seeing in camp. He looked lost to me in the running game on Saturday b

 

[ausmurp]

Yes people overreact to preseason games. Coaches typically come in and let the offense and defense just play basic football, not calling anything special, just basic run pass on O, man, cover 2, cover 3 on D. Some even let things happen to put their teams in specific situations that they want to practice, i.e. goal line defense, etc. Scores and stats are not what fans should be looking for.

You should be looking for the flashes in the players, i.e. the way Goff stood in the pocket and made some very good throws. The way Mannion controlled the offensive huddle, his vision on the comeback drive to win. The way Spruce and Higbee were easily able to separate and catch the ball. GRob missing a slide. Our weak pass blocking. The overall depth of our team to dominate Dallas in the second half - this was a key point for me. The Rams have always had depth issues, but it looks like those may be soon going away.

That being said, our 1s on defense were terrible. Our coaches are just letting them play out there and they couldn't contend. Joyner is potentially a 1, Sensabaugh (spelling off I know) is a 1. Our DL1s were out there off and on. We couldn't stop them without Williams spicing up the calls. This is what worries me and is proof we are not an elite D yet. Seattle 1s on D shut everything down in preseason while just playing tackle football in man, cover 2, and cover 3 zones. We can't seem to do this. And our D seems to perform like this every year in preseason. I get it, the coach is probably just playing basic and trying to put the team in situations, but an elite D we are not else we would be able to handle these in preseason. Just my 0.02. Still excited and I'm sure they'll get more consistent as the season goes on.

 

[ausmurp]

also a note on the Joyner and Sesabaugh coverage. The coach probably called the safety down to ensure they were singled up on Dez/Williams. I don't expect Sensabaugh to be able to cover Dez 75% of the time and other teams don't have a Dez so I'm not too worried about that. Joyner on Williams the coach did the same and probably wanted to see how Joyner would handle a 6'2'' WR. Again he's going to be in the slot so this shouldn't happen too much in the season. Just some thoughts on how the coach probably handled these situations.

 

[jrry32]

Yes, we beat Seattle and we're lucky to do it - we very nearly fumbled that game away. We followed that up with horrible games against the Skins and Pitt.

The year before that (2014) we started 1-3 kicking off the season by getting embarrassed by Minn

The year before that one (2013) we also started 1-3.

Each of these years we had the vanilla preseason talk and each of these years we got off to slow starts. Now, the team hasn't been all that good the last several years - that's no secret - so we can't expect 4-0 starts looking back but we have been unquestionably slow starters under Fisher.

I don't care about the final score of a preseason game - I do care about how they look playing one. But I agree that staying healthy is more important than anything else.

No, we weren't lucky to do it. Seattle was lucky to even be in that game. We beat Seattle without Todd Gurley. There was no luck involved. And then we played a crappy game against Washington, narrowly lost to Pittsburgh, and beat Arizona.

Yea, I'm not seeing your point. I see two wins against two of the best teams in football last year (Seattle and Arizona) and a close lost against another one of the best teams in football (Pittsburgh).

The preseason does not matter. The value in the preseason is getting guys reps and keeping guys healthy. It does not affect how we play Week 1.

 

[bubbaramfan]

You're being unfair to Rams "ones" murp. Rams #1 D line was never on the field. Quinn and Hayes, Rams starting DE's, never played. Brockers only played a few downs. EJ Gaines never played. Rams projected starting D were never all on the field at the same time from the start of the game on.

Had this been a regular season game and counted in the standings, Johnson would have been most likely covering Bryant, there would have been an actual pass rush from Hayes and Quinn and Donald, and the DB's wouldn't have been playing soft and 10 yards off.

 

[12intheBox]

No, we weren't lucky to do it. Seattle was lucky to even be in that game. We beat Seattle without Todd Gurley. There was no luck involved. And then we played a crappy game against Washington, narrowly lost to Pittsburgh, and beat Arizona.

Yea, I'm not seeing your point. I see two wins against two of the best teams in football last year (Seattle and Arizona) and a close lost against another one of the best teams in football (Pittsburgh).

The preseason does not matter. The value in the preseason is getting guys reps and keeping guys healthy. It does not affect how we play Week 1.

Preseason games do not matter - on this we agree - the preseason itself does matter. It's when you get ready to start the season. And under this regime, the Rams have been slow starters. I think even Fisher would tell you as much.

 

[jrry32]

Preseason games do not matter - on this we agree - the preseason itself does matter. It's when you get ready to start the season. And under this regime, the Rams have been slow starters. I think even Fisher would tell you as much.

Except they were very clearly not slow starters last year despite employing the same strategy they always employed.

The preseason, itself, doesn't matter except for the guys trying to make the team. You knock the rust off your vets. That's the extent of it. The idea that it makes any difference whether you go vanilla or not and whether you win or not isn't supported by facts.
http://www.sportingcharts.com/artic...-indicator-of-regular-season-performance.aspx

When comparing the records, we found that there was no correlation between the performance of the pre-season to the regular season.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...mes-havent-mattered-since-1994/1#.V7I7KJgrKCg

Our main finding is that, although we confirm the significance of preseason winning as a predictor of regular season winning previously found in the 1970-1991 period, we are unable to find any statistical evidence that preseason winning percentage or winning the third game of the preseason provides any preview of NFL team performance in the regular season in the most recent 2002-2010 seasons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/s...-preseason-games-meaningless-spoiler-yes.html

In the last 10 years, 18 teams have been unbeaten and untied in preseason play. Those teams went on to post a combined regular-season record of only 130-158.


The teams that were perfect in the preseason also did not improve from the previous season, declining by a total of 23½ games, dropping more than one win per team.

In some cases, a good preseason did herald a successful year. The Broncos parlayed a perfect preseason in 2005 into a 13-3 record, and the 2013 Seahawks won the Super Bowl after a 4-0 preseason.


But more often, the preseason wonders flopped when the games started to count. In 2013, the Redskins, who had won 10 games the previous season, fell to 3-13. The 2011 Rams won all four games in the preseason, then went on to win just two regular-season games.


The most egregious case was the 2008 Lions. They swept through the preseason, outscoring their four opponents by 80-32. Among their victims were the Giants, who would go 12-4 that year.


The Lions fell apart in the regular season. Trying out Jon Kitna, Dan Orlovsky and Daunte Culpepper as starting quarterbacks, Detroit staggered to the league’s first 0-16 record.


In contrast to the summertime highfliers, eventual Super Bowl champions generally had undistinguished preseasons. Even with the 2013 Seahawks’ 4-0 record, the winners of the last 10 Super Bowls have posted a combined preseason record of only 23-17.

 

[Mojo Ram]

The slow starts have been an issue but i wouldn't necessarily lump last year into that category.
Rams were 4-3(3-0 division) before the wheels fell off at QB(yet again) and we lose 5 straight.
Then the strong finish at 3-1

For myself, i just want to see individual progress from the new guys and from the veterans that have under performed in the past. I don't care about preseason wins...although that Saturday night win was fairly important considering the circumstances.

 

[12intheBox]

Except they were very clearly not slow starters last year despite employing the same strategy they always employed.

The preseason, itself, doesn't matter except for the guys trying to make the team. You knock the rust off your vets. That's the extent of it. The idea that it makes any difference whether you go vanilla or not and whether you win or not isn't supported by facts.
http://www.sportingcharts.com/artic...-indicator-of-regular-season-performance.aspx


http://content.usatoday.com/communi...mes-havent-mattered-since-1994/1#.V7I7KJgrKCg


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/s...-preseason-games-meaningless-spoiler-yes.html

Again, I don't need them to win. I don't care about the score of the games - I don't need them show the entire playbook offensively or defensively. What I am saying is that the preseason M/O of the past 4 years has not been effective - they have had crappy first quarters of the season every year since Fisher has been here. When they have looked flat in preseasons past - we hear it's because they are running vanilla schemes - which would be fine if they turned on the heat when the season started but they haven't. Granted, maybe I shouldn't be expecting a team who has been nothing more than .500 to have starts any better than .500 - but .500 is as good as it has ever gotten for their first 4 games under Fisher. This isn't my analysis - Fisher has said as much himself.

 

[Florida_Ram]

I got 1 word for ya....stop.

Just. Stop.

I re-watched all 3 Dallas TDs. Here's my non-coaching perspective.

Why I'm not worried:
If this were the real games, the #2 corner would be on Terrance Williams, and I'm assuming it's gonna be EJ Gaines. And the more I look at it, I'm glad Lamarcus didn't get completely burned like Janoris sometimes did. He recovered nicely, and still had decent coverage. Just a good throw.

So in summary: not the real STs and defense, no real scheme, they went through the motions. And under Jeff Fisher on week 1s, when has this team NOT been ready to play week 1? Once, during the whole Shaun Hill/Austin Davis debacle.

I'm not worried was just deflated that our starting group weather mixed with 1's, 2's and or 3's looked to be out of place or not interested for what ever reasons they were.

I watched the game a 2nd time and agree with many of your findings. I always watch these preseason debacles 2 or 3 times leading up to the next one and see things for what they WERE not for what they ARE.

The Fisher preseason defenses have a trend of underachieving and Gap Integrity issues so I wasn't totally surprised just caught off guard thinking the first game back in LA might break that trend but it obviously didn't..

No worries and I've already moved on to the CHIEFS game

 

[Fatbot]

the Rams were playing soft to avoid injuries ... No pass rush (Quinn and Hayes, both starting DE's didn't play) No Gaines at DB.
Fisher is more concerned about getting through TC and pre-season injury free and getting good player evaluation than with winning, so its unfair to compare Rams "ones" to Cowboys "ones".

Agree with your point about Fisher's goals and I don't think any fans here at this site are under any misconceptions that winning preseason is important. But I have to disagree that they were told to play soft. There is no surer recipe for an injury in football than going less than 100%. You can't play to avoid injury; you get injured every time. It works in practice with no pads, thud, etc., but in a live football game you will absolutely get rolled up on or something stupid if you aren't going 100%. So I think guys were going hard but the main problem was the dreaded "vanilla" at work.

I also agree with your point that it's silly to try to make a 1s v. 1s comparison as there's so many variables that are not similar to a real game here. But I don't think the claim that the starters were not playing is correct. Hayes was in there. Donald & Brockers, too. Only guy not starting on DL was Quinn. All starting LBs were in. All starting secondary as it stands now, minus EJ, who probably shouldn't be considered a starter until he actually proves he can step onto the field and perform. So it was 9 or 10 of 11 starters by my count. Yes, Quinn is a huge missing piece and obviously someone needs to step up to be a starting caliber CB, but I don't think it is valid to try to claim the #1 defense wasn't out there. I hope the Rams are thinking it was out there and it stunk and work to correct the problems, that's what's great about preseason.

 

[12intheBox]

In other news - I like this ......



View: https://twitter.com/dailynewsvinny/status/765352389356335104

 

[jrry32]

Again, I don't need them to win. I don't care about the score of the games - I don't need them show the entire playbook offensively or defensively. What I am saying is that the preseason M/O of the past 4 years has not been effective - they have had crappy first quarters of the season every year since Fisher has been here. When they have looked flat in preseasons past - we hear it's because they are running vanilla schemes - which would be fine if they turned on the heat when the season started but they haven't. Granted, maybe I shouldn't be expecting a team who has been nothing more than .500 to have starts any better than .500 - but .500 is as good as it has ever gotten for their first 4 games under Fisher. This isn't my analysis - Fisher has said as much himself.

I'd call a .500 start against only playoff teams to be a pretty damn good start.

 

[SteveBrown]

As to Spruce, what more does he have to do to convince you that he can play in this league?

I am happy we have Spruce, but I want to see him beat a '3rd' corner---in man coverage, at the LOS off the bump. After someone catches a bunch of 5-8 yard passes, then the rest of his career the corner will be up in his face because he doesn't worry about Spruce's quickness/speed up the field, because they know what Spruce will do, then Spruce has to beat someone 12-15 yards down the field so the corner 'stops waiting, or sitting on short routes'; All of that means: I don't think Spruce can beat the 3rd best corner on a team 12+ yards down the field. However, with a great/perfect thrower like Goff, and Spruce's fly paper hands, maybe he still becomes very successful because of their 'skills together' as a QB-WR combo.

There aren't a lot of guys like Spruce who have made it the last 15 years in the NFL without being quick, or able to turn on a dime. Amendola can turn on a dime, and has mini-explosive steps; however, Spruce does have great footwork, and long frame and is incredible savvy!

Dane Looker is a perfect example of the type of thing I am talking about. With Martz's system, and Coming off the bench as the 4th WR, he did well. He could never start in the NFL---and I don't think Spruce can, either. If Spruce becomes a great slot or 3rd WR, I am very happy. That will be because Cooper didn't work out.

After corners and D coordinators get to 'know' Spruce, I think he will be a one trick pony because of lack of foot quickness (which is different than great footwork).

 

[A.J. Hicks]

fixed it bitious!
All Cooper....he doesn't wanna get hit, don't put on a jersey:eek:....it's getting ridiculous....I bet SPRUCE :yay:woulda held it...Higbee too....and definitely my boy Quick:yess:....lol

While I fully believe that he should have caught that ball. Come on. This was his first NFL action. One of Coopers best College highlights is a similar play where he gets smacked twice and still holds onto the ball.

I have faith that he'll improve, same goes for Mike Thomas.

 

[bubbaramfan]

I can think of another WR that Spruce resembles that wasn't fast and had a pretty good career. Steve Largent.

 

[Merlin]

Dane Looker is a perfect example of the type of thing I am talking about. With Martz's system, and Coming off the bench as the 4th WR, he did well. He could never start in the NFL---and I don't think Spruce can, either. If Spruce becomes a great slot or 3rd WR, I am very happy. That will be because Cooper didn't work out.

You may be right but then again I think Spruce is about tired of people putting limits on him. I think he's that guy who is not going to be denied, whether it's with the Rams or another team. Patriots have made a KILLING on guys like him, so here's hoping the Rams are smart enough to make room for him.

 

[SteveBrown]

You may be right but then again I think Spruce is about tired of people putting limits on him. I think he's that guy who is not going to be denied, whether it's with the Rams or another team. Patriots have made a KILLING on guys like him, so here's hoping the Rams are smart enough to make room for him.

Spruce doesn't have the foot quickness that Edelman has, or Amendola.

When I saw Edelmen in 2011-2012-ish or so, I loved him....like an Amendola...but, I didn't think he would be what he is now. I was surprised they didn't think Edelman could do what AMendola ofered.

Largent played in another era when the corners played man off 'man ' coverage, and didn't have the techniques like today. Lester Hayes erased Steve Largent, usually. TOday's corners have a lot more than Lester had (Lester was my all time fav early 80s corner).

Spruce is special, like Amendola, in that he always gets the ball.

 

[Angry Ram]

That being said, our 1s on defense were terrible. Our coaches are just letting them play out there and they couldn't contend. Joyner is potentially a 1, Sensabaugh (spelling off I know) is a 1. Our DL1s were out there off and on.

Those CBs aren't the starters. That belongs to Tru and EJ Gaines (most likely).

But let's say they were, wouldn't you think with the actual front 7 (that wasn't it on Saturday night) stuntin and blitzin, the coverage would improve? Of course it would. Unless they transform into Justin King, and that's when I'll start to get concerned.