GM Les Snead reflects on Rams' season/Wagoner

[RamBill]

GM Les Snead reflects on Rams' season
By Nick Wagoner

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/15316/gm-les-snead-reflects-on-rams-season

EARTH CITY, Mo. -- After a series of close calls and blown opportunities that led to a 6-10 season, St. Louis Rams general manager Les Snead still finds himself waking up in the middle of the night thinking about what could have been.

"I'll be honest, there'll be many nights that a lot of people in this building, especially myself, I'll wake up and lose sleep," Snead said. "Hey, I have replays in my mind."

Snead proceeds to tick them off like items on a grocery list. The 21-0 lead that vanished into thin air against the Dallas Cowboys. The last-second interception in San Diego with the Rams on the verge of a game-winning touchdown. The near-comeback in Philadelphia that came up just short. Having the ball with a chance to win on the final possession of a six-point game against the Arizona Cardinals.

To name just a few.

"All of those things could have gone the other way so you're going to lose sleep over that," Snead said.

As one of the people tasked with the rebuilding project that began in 2012, Snead has been part of an ongoing process that's seen the Rams rise from the bottom of the NFL barrel to somewhere in the middle. Undoubtedly, a pair of seven-win seasons and even a disappointing six-victory performance in 2014 represent progress over a team that averaged three wins per season in the five years preceding Snead and coach Jeff Fisher's arrival.

"I think what we did do was move the needle to respectability," Snead said. "I think there''s more than hope and that's the progress that was made."

It's also simply not good enough and as the fourth year of the Snead and Fisher era comes, it's fair to wonder if that duo can elevate the Rams to the next level, the level of contender that actually matters.

Heading into the offseason, Snead faces one of the most difficult tasks of his time in St. Louis, namely he and Fisher have repair the Rams' quarterback situation, a question for which there is no obvious answer. The plan as it stands is to bring back Sam Bradford and find a legitimate option from outside the building.

It's a plan that would have made more sense last year when the Rams still had extra picks from the trade with the Washington Redskins and faced a similar situation with Bradford coming off injury. That's just one of the things on an offseason checklist that figures to be offense heavy and also includes yet another reconstruction of the offensive line.

As Snead and the Rams head toward that offseason, they must attack it like a group that's running out of time.

"It makes you angry," Snead said. "I always say it's good to be angry because that means there's something to be angry about. It's not despair, it's not 'Hey, we're an aging team now and we were in a window and now we're leaving it.' For us to fight back like we did out of the holeb it was fun to see those guys do it. I know we're in a results business and the final math means something but to see a young group of kids going through some adversity and to fight back is kind of rewarding. It's kind of what you live for, instead of just waking up and looking at the math."

Ultimately, it's the math that matters most, which makes this the most important offseason of Snead and Fisher's tenure in St. Louis.

 

[Alan]

Even had we won those three games we'd only have been 9-7 and out of the playoffs again anyway.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Even had we won those three games we'd only have been 9-7 and out of the playoffs again anyway.

Maybe, but you don't know what confidence and momentum could have changed. Two of those wins were early in the season and would have had the Rams on the winning side of the column coming into some of those late games. The lose to Arizona really seemed to change the team, since it took them out of any playoff chance. The next two games were not good for the defense.

Fix the Oline at least. I think the QB thing is nearly hopeless unless the Rams can move up for a young stud like Winston. But I cannot see the Bucaneers or other QB needy teams willing to trade the rights to Winston or Mariotta. Remember the Rams made that trade with Washington because they had Bradford. No Bradford and we would all be in RGIII hell right now. Fix the Oline and a guy like Glennon, or Cutler, or even Sean Hill can be good enough get in the playoffs. I just don't think the Rams get very far though with any of them other than Cutler.

 

[Alan]

Elmgrovegnome believing in the power of inertia:
Maybe, but you don't know what confidence and momentum could have changed. Two of those wins were early in the season and would have had the Rams on the winning side of the column coming into some of those late games. The lose to Arizona really seemed to change the team, since it took them out of any playoff chance. The next two games were not good for the defense.

Fix the Oline at least. I think the QB thing is nearly hopeless unless the Rams can move up for a young stud like Winston. But I cannot see the Bucaneers or other QB needy teams willing to trade the rights to Winston or Mariotta. Remember the Rams made that trade with Washington because they had Bradford. No Bradford and we would all be in RGIII hell right now. Fix the Oline and a guy like Glennon, or Cutler, or even Sean Hill can be good enough get in the playoffs. I just don't think the Rams get very far though with any of them other than Cutler.

I'm not a huge believer in the power of momentum. You don't keep winning games because you have momentum, you keep winning games because you play better than the other teams. Same when you lose.

People talk about "if only those breaks had gone the other way." What about all the breaks that went our way? Things have a way of evening out over the coarse of a season. How about that Kapernoodle fumble at the goal line? We lost because we didn't have the talent to win. Players and coaches. I think we've improved greatly though.

Can't argue with the rest of what you said. I could quibble a little bit but those are all good avenues to go in even if I might not follow them exactly. Especially your comment about the O-line.

 

[RamsOfCastamere]

I'm not a huge believer in the power of momentum. You don't keep winning games because you have momentum, you keep winning games because you play better than the other teams. Same when you lose.

I disagree. Momentum gives you confidence, and you can't play your best without confidence. If you're not confident, you become hesitant, and that split second of time affects execution.

 

[Alan]

RamsOfCastamere demurring:
I disagree. Momentum gives you confidence, and you can't play your best without confidence. If you're not confident, you become hesitant, and that split second of time affects execution.

So what's your definition of momentum and how are you applying it?

Are you're talking about a series of plays you've executed with perfection (and/or a series of breaks going your way)? Something that often results in you building a big lead in a game which in turn changes the other team's playbook getting them out of their game which often has a snow balling effect on both sides of the ball? What was going on in when we took that early 21 point lead against the Cowgirls? How'd that momentum work for our confidence level then? Did we, as teams sometimes do, change the style of play that got us our the big lead and we started to play not to lose instead of to win? Or did the Cowgirls superior overall level of talent start showing up (along with the ball starting to bounce the other way)? How about the Eagles game? Did they somehow lose all their confidence after building up that huge lead or was it the prevent defense the used the rest of the game which allowed our O to almost pull out a win for us?

Was it "momentum" that made you confident or was it your good play/the ball bouncing your way? Why do you so often hear the phrase "the momentum has shifted" or even worse "the momentum keeps changing" if it really has any meaning? Doesn't that really mean that the other team is starting to execute better (like they were capable of playing in the first place) and'or starting to get some of the breaks themselves? How did the small winning streak by us end? Did we suddenly lose our confidence or become not hesitant enough? Is you confidence level that fragile? If your confidence is based on momentum then I'd contend that it wasn't really confidence in the first place. Personally, my confidence level is based on the caliber of my play and opinion of my skills and not "momentum."

I would contend that in any particular game, those other factors I mentioned are what is really happening on the field. If momentum has really been the factor in building up your confidence I'd have to ask you two questions. How would you describe the play of your team as it was building that lead? Lacking in confidence and over thinking? Does that make any sense? I know, that's really three questions wrapped up in one.

The second question I'd ask is when that "momentum shifts" doesn't that mean you suddenly lost that confidence and became hesitant? How does that happen? Is your confidence level on a swivel or built on shifting sands?

What I'll give you and the other believers in the power of "momentum" is the demoralizing effect that an accumulated series of good plays and good breaks can have on an opponent with all the negative effects that can have on your play. Especially the stupid penalties that often result when you're losing badly and you get frustrated. I just don't call that momentum, I call it a result of those other factors I mentioned. Demotivation can effect the levels of certain chemicals in your body which can result in temporary degradation in your physical (and mental) abilities.

Again, as in the belief in conspiracies (in many cases), a belief in momentum is often just a lazy way of analyzing what's happening on the field. Especially misuse in games by announcers but that's just the most egregious example. IMO of course. I could be wrong but it's not what I see in real life.

Luck is another ridiculous term to me but we'll save that one for later.

 

[jrry32]

Even had we won those three games we'd only have been 9-7 and out of the playoffs again anyway.

There were four games referenced.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

And having a shot at Winston.

You could say this about 75% of the games played in the NFL.

You could also say that the Rams were a few really bad calls from being 10 and 6

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Alan refusing to believe in anything that he cannot touch
I'm not a huge believer in the power of momentum. You don't keep winning games because you have momentum, you keep winning games because you play better than the other teams. Same when you lose.

People talk about "if only those breaks had gone the other way." What about all the breaks that went our way? Things have a way of evening out over the coarse of a season. How about that Kapernoodle fumble at the goal line? We lost because we didn't have the talent to win. Players and coaches. I think we've improved greatly though.

Can't argue with the rest of what you said. I could quibble a little bit but those are all good avenues to go in even if I might not follow them exactly. Especially your comment about the O-line.

I get it. You don't believe a young team needs confidence to win they just need to win. I disagree. I saw the Rams go into a shell in the first game against San Francisco with one ridiculous Pass Interference call against Jarred Cook. The Rams had momentum. It built their confidence and they were believing they could win that game. Then the refs reared their ugly flags at the most opportune moment. It killed the momentum. JJs dumb mistake stuck a fork n it. The team didn't look the same after those plays.

Teams can get on a roll. Your right, it happens to good teams more than bad ones. But I watched the Giants and Ravens suddenly get the confidence after a bad start and make it to the Superbowl. Maybe you choose not to call it momentum. But I believe that strength and courage and confidence and even execution can be built upon by momentum. A string of good games gets guys thinking positively and suddenly possibilities that were not there before are. Then a bad call and a big play by the opponent and the negative thoughts take over and when that happens the doors of possibility close and winning becomes much more difficult.

 

[Ramathon]

So what's your definition of momentum and how are you applying it?

Are you're talking about a series of plays you've executed with perfection (and/or a series of breaks going your way)? Something that often results in you building a big lead in a game which in turn changes the other team's playbook getting them out of their game which often has a snow balling effect on both sides of the ball? What was going on in when we took that early 21 point lead against the Cowgirls? How'd that momentum work for our confidence level then? Did we, as teams sometimes do, change the style of play that got us our the big lead and we started to play not to lose instead of to win? Or did the Cowgirls superior overall level of talent start showing up (along with the ball starting to bounce the other way)? How about the Eagles game? Did they somehow lose all their confidence after building up that huge lead or was it the prevent defense the used the rest of the game which allowed our O to almost pull out a win for us?

Was it "momentum" that made you confident or was it your good play/the ball bouncing your way? Why do you so often hear the phrase "the momentum has shifted" or even worse "the momentum keeps changing" if it really has any meaning? Doesn't that really mean that the other team is starting to execute better (like they were capable of playing in the first place) and'or starting to get some of the breaks themselves? How did the small winning streak by us end? Did we suddenly lose our confidence or become not hesitant enough? Is you confidence level that fragile? If your confidence is based on momentum then I'd contend that it wasn't really confidence in the first place. Personally, my confidence level is based on the caliber of my play and opinion of my skills and not "momentum."

I would contend that in any particular game, those other factors I mentioned are what is really happening on the field. If momentum has really been the factor in building up your confidence I'd have to ask you two questions. How would you describe the play of your team as it was building that lead? Lacking in confidence and over thinking? Does that make any sense? I know, that's really three questions wrapped up in one.

The second question I'd ask is when that "momentum shifts" doesn't that mean you suddenly lost that confidence and became hesitant? How does that happen? Is your confidence level on a swivel or built on shifting sands?

What I'll give you and the other believers in the power of "momentum" is the demoralizing effect that an accumulated series of good plays and good breaks can have on an opponent with all the negative effects that can have on your play. Especially the stupid penalties that often result when you're losing badly and you get frustrated. I just don't call that momentum, I call it a result of those other factors I mentioned. Demotivation can effect the levels of certain chemicals in your body which can result in temporary degradation in your physical (and mental) abilities.

Again, as in the belief in conspiracies (in many cases), a belief in momentum is often just a lazy way of analyzing what's happening on the field. Especially misuse in games by announcers but that's just the most egregious example. IMO of course. I could be wrong but it's not what I see in real life.

Luck is another ridiculous term to me but we'll save that one for later.

I'm not a big believer in either 'mo' or 'luck', but I do think they exist. And no, I can't precisely define either....it's more like SCOTUS and pornography. I.e., "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

For the most part, I think players/coaches/organizations tend to make their own 'luck', but there are also times when, despite seemingly inefficient play, things seem to go a team's way. It's like those games where an offense commits 4 turnovers, is outgained in yardage by a significant amount, and is on the wrong side of a large time of possession differential, but still manages to win the game.

Momentum I tend to believe is more an in game phenomenom. In reality, it probably is rooted in just playing better than your opponent, but there are times when success breeds success and it turns into a 1+1=3 kinda thing. So, it's the result of good play w/ a side of 'luck' thrown in.

But I also think stringing a few good games together can, but certainly doesn't always, build seasonal momentum. It's part of the 'learning how to win' thing. At some point, a team just expects to win every time they set foot on the field. And that's a result of largely just playing good, but takes a smidgeon of luck, and a little 'mo' thrown in. May not be the best analogy, but it's like The Beatles. Based on their solo careers post breakup, it could easily be said that McCartney was the only one of the 4 some might consider an above avg musician. But 1+1+1+1 inarguably added up to a lot more than 3 'average' + 1 somewhat above avg musicians.

 

[Alan]

jrry32 noticing out my error:
There were four games referenced.

Good catch. Doesn't change my overall point though.

flv reinforcing my overall point:
Zuerlein misses a last minute 38 yard FG in Tampa Bay, Kaepernick doesn't fumble a 1st and goal at the 1, and Hekker overthrows a 4th down pass against Seattle. We were that close to being 3-13.

 

[Alan]

Ramathon with some reservations about my opinion:
I'm not a big believer in either 'mo' or 'luck', but I do think they exist.

I agree. That's why I also used the word big. Although I didn't italicize it.

but there are also times when, despite seemingly inefficient play, things seem to go a team's way.

You can flip a coin a hundred times and have it come up heads every time too.

Momentum I tend to believe is more an in game phenomenom.

That's exactly where I think what little effect it has comes in too. Watch it, you should worry when you come this close to thinking like me.

But I also think stringing a few good games together can, but certainly doesn't always, build seasonal momentum. It's part of the 'learning how to win' thing. At some point, a team just expects to win every time they set foot on the field. And that's a result of largely just playing good, but takes a smidgeon of luck, and a little 'mo' thrown in. May not be the best analogy, but it's like The Beatles. Based on their solo careers post breakup, it could easily be said that McCartney was the only one of the 4 some might consider an above avg musician. But 1+1+1+1 inarguably added up to a lot more than 3 'average' + 1 somewhat above avg musicians.

Here's where we part ways. Maybe you haven't gone all the way over to the dark side yet. :shades:

 

[Alan]

Elmgrovegnome misreading me:
I get it. You don't believe a young team needs confidence to win they just need to win.

That's not what I said and it isn't what I believe. I said that momentum is not what gives you confidence. Of course I believe that confidence is a big asset.

It killed the momentum.

It only killed "momentum" if you believe we had momentum in the first place. What it did was to allow the Cards to score points they wouldn't have. You call that a momentum breaker and I call that changing the score of a very close defensive game in the Cards favor. How is that not always deleterious to your cause?

Teams can get on a roll.

If you make 60% of your throws or make a first down 40% of the time and either or both of those positive outcomes come in the same series or several series in a row I'd call that the laws of probability coming down in you favor temporarily. Not much different than flipping a coin and having heads come up 5 times in a row. What that also means is that at some point in most games unless you're superior to the other team, you'll have periods where you don't make that first down or complete that pass. Some would call it "losing your momentum" or when the other teams does well during that period "changing the momentum" of the game. I call it the probabilities evening out like they should.

A string of good games gets guys thinking positively and suddenly possibilities that were not there before are. Then a bad call and a big play by the opponent and the negative thoughts take over and when that happens the doors of possibility close and winning becomes much more difficult.

I agree with all of this but is that a product of or require/rely on momentum? I'd posit the answer is emphatically no. What it does show is the positive effects that your good play and the benefit of having many of the breaks go your way can do to your confidence level. You and the others I'm responding to are conflating positive thinking and confidence with momentum I don't. There's no doubt in my mind that positive thinking and confidence are important for success. They are just not the result of momentum for the most part.

What I haven't heard from any of you is an explanation of how you lose this sudden momentum inducing higher level of play when a play goes against you or you get a bad call. You are only picking one set of parameters to argue and coming to a conclusion based on only half the parameters. I've discussed that but none of you have addressed it at all.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

[QUOTE="Alan, post: 490260, member: 1069"Alan not understanding the power of positive and negative thinking and what can ignite it:

I get it. You don't believe a young team needs confidence to win they just need to win.

That's not what I said and it isn't what I believe. I said that momentum is not what gives you confidence. Of course I believe that confidence is a big asset.

It killed the momentum.

It only killed "momentum" if you believe we had momentum in the first place. What it did was to allow the Cards to score points they wouldn't have. You call that a momentum breaker and I call that changing the score of a very close defensive game in the Cards favor. How is that not always deleterious to your cause?

Teams can get on a roll.

If you make 60% of your throws or make a first down 40% of the time and either or both of those positive outcomes come in the same series or several series in a row I'd call that the laws of probability coming down in you favor temporarily. Not much different than flipping a coin and having heads come up 5 times in a row. What that also means is that at some point in most games unless you're superior to the other team, you'll have periods where you don't make that first down or complete that pass. Some would call it "losing your momentum" or when the other teams does well during that period "changing the momentum" of the game. I call it the probabilities evening out like they should.

A string of good games gets guys thinking positively and suddenly possibilities that were not there before are. Then a bad call and a big play by the opponent and the negative thoughts take over and when that happens the doors of possibility close and winning becomes much more difficult.

I agree with all of this but is that a product of or require/rely on momentum? I'd posit the answer is emphatically no. What it does show is the positive effects that your good play and the benefit of having many of the breaks go your way can do to your confidence level. You and the others I'm responding to are conflating positive thinking and confidence with momentum I don't. There's no doubt in my mind that positive thinking and confidence are important for success. They are just not the result of momentum for the most part.

What I haven't heard from any of you is an explanation of how you lose this sudden momentum inducing higher level of play when a play goes against you or you get a bad call. You are only picking one set of parameters to argue and coming to a conclusion based on only half the parameters. I've discussed that but none of you have addressed it at all.[/QUOTE]

When a person or team thinks positively the possibilities are endless. When a person or team thinks negatively all of the possibilities disappear. For a young and inexperienced roster lacking strong leadership, a spark of some sort is needed to keep the positive vibes going, especially in the absence of a leader that can keep the team focused on the 'can do' and not the 'cannot'.

Fisher said many times this year that the team has to learn how to win, how to string wins together. There is a lot of talent there, especially on defense. We have seen the team play at a high level, as well as a low level. They have proven to be able to get it done with the confidence, game plan and, motivation. But the confidence is too easily broken. Bad calls, no confidence in the offense, defense on the field too much....whatever. With a team like this a string of success would go a long way. A string of success would enforce positive thoughts, it would increase confidence, open possibilities.

It would build momentum.

 

[Ramathon]

Ramathon with some reservations about my opinion:
I'm not a big believer in either 'mo' or 'luck', but I do think they exist.

I agree. That's why I also used the word big. Although I didn't italicize it.

Here's where we part ways. Maybe you haven't gone all the way over to the dark side yet. :shades:

Oh, I've been to the dark side. DEEP dark side. I'm just no longer the absolutist I once was. Though I still lean largely to tangible/provable 'stuff', I've also recognized what's tangible/provable today is based on today's knowledge/science, but that could easily change down the road. Things we are absolutely certain about today will some day seem every bit as archaic/silly as does the concept of a 'flat earth' today.

 

[Alan]

Elmgrovegnome changing his tune on momentum:
Stuff plus this:
It would build momentum.

Other than the part about the platitudes that Fisher (or any other coach who's got a losing record would say) said, I agree with all the rest of this. Saying these things will build momentum is completely different than saying these things were created by momentum and I'm fully on board with that.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Other than the part about the platitudes that Fisher (or any other coach who's got a losing record would say) said, I agree with all the rest of this. Saying these things will build momentum is completely different than saying these things were created by momentum and I'm fully on board with that.

I didnt change any tunes.

 

[Alan]

Elmgrovegnome thinking I'm mistaken:
I didnt change any tunes.

I must have misread you. I thought you started out saying that momentum created confidence and positive thinking and in your last post you said that positive thinking and confidence build creates) momentum. Whatever you're really trying to say it's flying right over my head but I can say this, I disagree with the first part and agree with the second part. It's always nice to end a discussion with at least a partial agreement eh?