havin an off-season

[Anonymous]

...

I think if you read every quote box in this thread you get a nice picture of the whole "off-season v. lockout" issue.

I mean you might not agree it's the full picture, but just for a conversation starter, I'm saying I personally think it is. 8)

Josh McDaniels - Friday, November 4, 2011 -
The Rams offensive coordinator joined Zach and The Coach to discuss the addition of Brandon Lloyd, the progression of the offense, and the challenges facing them in Arizona.
[link is not valid, it's old]
http://www.101sports.com/templates/audio_player.php?a=4455&

zn » Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:20 am

I think all the signs indicate Spags has already said something. What [McD] reveals is that Spags hauled him in over the bye. His big emphasis--only just NOW are the players getting comfortable with the offense. Plus, they did change things at the bye. He called that getting a better handle on who your players are and what they can do. I think this one was mutual. Not only were the Rams slow to learn this system, McD was slow to learn who the Rams players are. Anyway--this is about as informative as you're going to get from listening to a coach talk, and it's revealing in lots of ways.

wv ram » Sat Nov 05, 2011

I think the McD interview is the single most revealing, interesting audio of the year, so far. Its a must listen.

One of the things i thot was revealing was when he talks about Lloyd and how 'he' doesnt get overwhelmed by what's given to him. McD then talks about how that 'shows the young players how they dont have to get all overwhelmed' etc.

Well, No. It doesnt show that. It shows that McD doesnt know how to handle young players.

The statement from McD about the Veteran Lloyd and McD's take on what Lloyd 'proves' is mindblowing, really. I mean McD seems to be a genius when it comes to attacking a defense. Granted. Wonderful.

But his grasp of human pyschology and 'teaching' and young minds strikes me as pretty lacking.

At any rate, it will take care of itself. The young receivers and O Linemen will grow into their jobs game by game. And McD is not an idiot so he will learn too.

And in the 'long' run, i think there is at least an argument that
McD's "dont-worry-if-the-horse-is-blind-just-load-the-cart" way will
get them to where they wanna go, faster, than a more young-player-friendly, approach.

Rhome: why did Bradford have such a tough time last season

Fisher: it was clear and obvious to us...it was a change in the offensive system, his 2nd in 2 years, and then with the lockout there wasn't a chance to install, and then people started getting hurt around him, and they had trouble protecting him...the injury situation here last year was extraordinary...you have to delete last year, and look back to the way he played his rookie year under Pat Shurmur who did a great job with him...

QB Sam Bradford – Minicamp – June 13, 2012

(On if it is nice to have an offseason with the team)
“Yeah, it is nice. It’s nice to be able to come out here and make mistakes. And then go in the film room and talk to (Offensive coordinator Brian) ‘Schotty’ (Schottenheimer) and talk to (Quarterbacks coach Frank) ‘Cig’ (Cignetti) and talk about those mistakes and learn from them. Then come out the next day or the following day and correct them and get everyone on the same page. Whereas last year, I’m not really sure we had that opportunity. There was an install on one day and then the next day we couldn’t really spend that much time going back.

we’ve really been able to get into detail with what we’re doing.”

I think last year, I probably rushed to judgments and jumped to some conclusions with my comfort with the offense and everyone else’s general comfort with the offense. Whereas this year, I want to see it against a live defense before I really go out and make that statement.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

McD is a douche he thought young Bradford was Brady and Gibson was Moss....he should of scaled it down a lil and simplyfied it

 

[DR RAM]

I don't know what conversation you are looking for that has not already been had. So, why?

If you wanted people to say McD was a douche, you got your way. None of it matters now.

The old coaching staff is gone.

The CBA is new.

We won't know if anything (winning) changes until the season progresses.

Just let it go.

I don't care about McD, Spags, Shurmer, last offseason, or last season. I care about this season and the seasons to come under Fisher and company.

 

[RamFan503]

We won't know if anything (winning) changes until the season progresses.

I do. The winning begins September 9th. Mark it down. :7up:

All that aside, I do think what happened last season has some bearing. IMO - there is something to the idea that this team was not as bad - personnel wise - as the 2-14 record. Sometimes, looking at what happened puts a slight silver lining on this team and what we might be able to expect with an actual off season.

I think we all care far more about what happens under Fisher and Co. But we have 2 months of no football left. Think of it as filler material.

BTW - McD was a douche. :sly:

 

[Anonymous]

McD is a douche he thought young Bradford was Brady and Gibson was Moss....he should of scaled it down a lil and simplyfied it

Well he eventually did. At the bye. Word was then that Spags told him to reign it in. But by then the injuries kicked in.

I think he was a young, dogmatic coach who got taught a lesson. He didn't handle the lockout, and he didn't handle having a young team (he coached a predominantly young offense before).

Either way, though I said at the time (first few games) that they would catch on eventually. IE catch on to the offense. And I even think they WERE. But then injuries slaughtered THAT.

I do think what happened last season has some bearing. IMO - there is something to the idea that this team was not as bad - personnel wise - as the 2-14 record. Sometimes, looking at what happened puts a slight silver lining on this team and what we might be able to expect with an actual off season.

I think we all care far more about what happens under Fisher and Co. But we have 2 months of no football left. Think of it as filler material.

I agree with that. That a good assessment will account for things like that. Like, #1, the first handful of games looked so bad cause the offense was completely out of sync and just not executing the way they would if they were comfortable with the system. #2, add the injuries to that, and you get a more complete picture.

It does tell us they have more talent on hand than you would think they did if you DIDN'T account for the lockout effect and the injuries.

BTW, people often say to me, well all teams had to deal with the lockout. No, the other teams that either started a rookie qb or switched coaches or both simplified their systems. If McD did simplify it, he didn't do a good enough job. And THAT is a complex offense.

Still, again, as I said, I did think they would catch on eventually and I even thought they WERE catching on (signs of that showed up before and after the bye). But then they became, as Football Outsiders tells us, the single most injured up offense in the last decade.

 

[-X-]

Ima play devil's advocate on this one then.

How do we know he didn't simplify the offense? Where's the proof in that? How do we know it wasn't the injuries alone that ruined everything? And remember, the injuries started from the first play from scrimmage. Before that (preseason), it looked pretty good to me, and everyone was executing rather well. The first play from scrimmage was a touchdown, and Danny had 5 catches before he jacked up his elbow. How do we know it just wasn't the rookies being rookies during a truncated offseason?

How do you simplify an offense? What if during practice everyone was absorbing and executing the plays just fine, but they played defenses other than the Rams' defense and got the shit kicked out of them? What if they just weren't that good with backups playing starting roles? What if players just couldn't play? How else could you explain MSW getting cut after a handful of games? And on a team with incredibly thin receiver depth?

Something to chew on.

I don't like McDaniels as a coach, but I respect his ability to put together an offense. I think he's an innovator and any team would be better off with him running the show. *IF* the players could simply execute, we're not even having this discussion. *IF* the offensive line could simply take care of the man in front of them, we're not talking about scaling things back. Instead, we're discussing the disappointment that he didn't return this year.

 

[RamFan503]

Ima play devil's advocate on this one then.

Oh - so now you fancy yourself Keanu Reeves. Got it.

 

[-X-]

Ima play devil's advocate on this one then.

Oh - so now you fancy yourself Keanu Reeves. Got it.

Kind of. Except I won't sound like a surfer in EVERY movie I do.

 

[Anonymous]

Ima play devil's advocate on this one then.

How do we know he didn't simplify the offense?

I covered that. I said if he did he did a bad job of it. If I didn't say that this time, I do say it frequently.

And. I don;t think he did simplify.

Either way the offense was not ready and existed in that state for several games. That's on the coordinator. Somewhere along the line he didn't figure the players out.

thehammer posted something on this I thought was good:

thehammer

(A lot of this discussion, btw, turns around peoples's strange inabililty to offer an honest critique of McD. It's like it's taboo. "Stranger we do not speak ill of the one who will not be named. The gods have decreed this.")

definately true...if I live to be 100(not likely) I'll never figure out McD's plan at camp last year...I've coached sports and have been going to nfl training camps for 25 years and never saw anything like last years camp under Mcd...

never practiced the same thing 2 days in a row.....dumped everything that worked in 2010 and watched him arguing with Spags on the field at camp during practice (and sure looked like in the season during games)...all that in a shortened off-season

 

[DR RAM]

By landing McDaniels, the team informed other teams that it is NOT doing business as usual.

“I know for a fact that Tom Brady is upset that (McDaniels) is not back in New England and that the St. Louis Rams now have him on the staff,” Baldinger said.

“Josh McDaniels is absolutely perfect for that team. I think he is perfect for the rookie quarterback. I think they’ll make leaps and bounds jumps offensively. I think they are the immediate favorites to win the NFC West.”

Of course, the Rams must keep working toward that goal. This ambitious coaching move was just one step in a winning direction.

Thus, after only three days of practice (one in pads), it was somewhat surprising to hear Bradford say he feels more comfortable in the new offense than he did in the West Coast scheme at the same point a year ago.

“I really think this offense is going to give us the opportunity to be much better,” Bradford said. “No offense to what we were doing last year; I think the West Coast is great, and it was great to play in it last year.

“It’s just what I’ve seen in this offense. If you look at New England and what they were able to do when Josh was there, and some of the offenses he’s been a part of, they were pretty explosive and pretty special. I think we have that same opportunity.”

"I'm a fan of Josh McDaniels. I watched how he learned with Bill [Belichick], how he worked with Tom Brady, what he did with Matt Cassel. I am impressed with his abilities to work with quarterbacks.

"Another thing that impressed me was when he was in Denver and they had an opportunity to play New England. Bill Belichick is a great mind in this game. What [McDaniels] was able to do to their defense. Understand that Bill knew that Josh knew him. Bill knew Josh and I'm sure they went against each other many times in practice. How he took apart their defense, I sat there in awe. From that game on, people started attacking the New England Patriots in a different way. That kind of caused a youth movement in New England from the older players to, 'OK, we need to get some fresh new guys, we're rebuilding on defense the last couple years.'

"I'm eager to not only watch, but I'm going to get a chance to talk to Josh today. For me, I know the quarterbacks in this league that are successful, they play in one system, they play a long time in that system. The terminology, it doesn't change because you want that quarterback to grow. I want to see how much Josh has learned from the system that they had and how much of the new stuff did he put in, and did he tweak the terminology? And then from Sam, from last year to this year, where he is, is the kinds of things I want to find out."

All these quotes are meaningless.

 

[Anonymous]

By landing McDaniels, the team informed other teams that it is NOT doing business as usual.

“I know for a fact that Tom Brady is upset that (McDaniels) is not back in New England and that the St. Louis Rams now have him on the staff,” Baldinger said.

“Josh McDaniels is absolutely perfect for that team. I think he is perfect for the rookie quarterback. I think they’ll make leaps and bounds jumps offensively. I think they are the immediate favorites to win the NFC West.”

Of course, the Rams must keep working toward that goal. This ambitious coaching move was just one step in a winning direction.

Thus, after only three days of practice (one in pads), it was somewhat surprising to hear Bradford say he feels more comfortable in the new offense than he did in the West Coast scheme at the same point a year ago.

“I really think this offense is going to give us the opportunity to be much better,” Bradford said. “No offense to what we were doing last year; I think the West Coast is great, and it was great to play in it last year.

“It’s just what I’ve seen in this offense. If you look at New England and what they were able to do when Josh was there, and some of the offenses he’s been a part of, they were pretty explosive and pretty special. I think we have that same opportunity.”

"I'm a fan of Josh McDaniels. I watched how he learned with Bill [Belichick], how he worked with Tom Brady, what he did with Matt Cassel. I am impressed with his abilities to work with quarterbacks.

"Another thing that impressed me was when he was in Denver and they had an opportunity to play New England. Bill Belichick is a great mind in this game. What [McDaniels] was able to do to their defense. Understand that Bill knew that Josh knew him. Bill knew Josh and I'm sure they went against each other many times in practice. How he took apart their defense, I sat there in awe. From that game on, people started attacking the New England Patriots in a different way. That kind of caused a youth movement in New England from the older players to, 'OK, we need to get some fresh new guys, we're rebuilding on defense the last couple years.'

"I'm eager to not only watch, but I'm going to get a chance to talk to Josh today. For me, I know the quarterbacks in this league that are successful, they play in one system, they play a long time in that system. The terminology, it doesn't change because you want that quarterback to grow. I want to see how much Josh has learned from the system that they had and how much of the new stuff did he put in, and did he tweak the terminology? And then from Sam, from last year to this year, where he is, is the kinds of things I want to find out."

All these quotes are meaningless.

They are, actually.

None of them address the actual issue.

The actual issue is how he handled an install with a predominantly young offense without an off-season.

He's young and had never dealt with a lockout before, and in fact, had never dealt with a predominantly young offense before.

That's the issue. We know his rep. People with reps sometimes stumble in new situations. If they are really any good, they learn from it.

We do know he can be prickly and dogmatic. In the end they hated him in Denver, and in fact, assistant coaches were anonymously complaining about him to reporters...which virtually NEVER happens in the NFL. So we do know he can be young and arrogant.

Either way, in previous coaching runs, he always dealt with predominantly veteran offenses and always had an off-season. When he was outside that safety zone he stumbled. If he's any good he learns from it.

As for this, Bradford directly took it back:

Thus, after only three days of practice (one in pads), it was somewhat surprising to hear Bradford say he feels more comfortable in the new offense than he did in the West Coast scheme at the same point a year ago.

Well now he says about that:

I think last year, I probably rushed to judgments and jumped to some conclusions with my comfort with the offense and everyone else’s general comfort with the offense. Whereas this year, I want to see it against a live defense before I really go out and make that statement.

I mean heck you could tell by watching them they were not comfortable with the offense yet. I was saying it in game threads during the games.

 

[Thordaddy]

By landing McDaniels, the team informed other teams that it is NOT doing business as usual.

“I know for a fact that Tom Brady is upset that (McDaniels) is not back in New England and that the St. Louis Rams now have him on the staff,” Baldinger said.

“Josh McDaniels is absolutely perfect for that team. I think he is perfect for the rookie quarterback. I think they’ll make leaps and bounds jumps offensively. I think they are the immediate favorites to win the NFC West.”

Of course, the Rams must keep working toward that goal. This ambitious coaching move was just one step in a winning direction.

Thus, after only three days of practice (one in pads), it was somewhat surprising to hear Bradford say he feels more comfortable in the new offense than he did in the West Coast scheme at the same point a year ago.

“I really think this offense is going to give us the opportunity to be much better,” Bradford said. “No offense to what we were doing last year; I think the West Coast is great, and it was great to play in it last year.

“It’s just what I’ve seen in this offense. If you look at New England and what they were able to do when Josh was there, and some of the offenses he’s been a part of, they were pretty explosive and pretty special. I think we have that same opportunity.”

"I'm a fan of Josh McDaniels. I watched how he learned with Bill [Belichick], how he worked with Tom Brady, what he did with Matt Cassel. I am impressed with his abilities to work with quarterbacks.

"Another thing that impressed me was when he was in Denver and they had an opportunity to play New England. Bill Belichick is a great mind in this game. What [McDaniels] was able to do to their defense. Understand that Bill knew that Josh knew him. Bill knew Josh and I'm sure they went against each other many times in practice. How he took apart their defense, I sat there in awe. From that game on, people started attacking the New England Patriots in a different way. That kind of caused a youth movement in New England from the older players to, 'OK, we need to get some fresh new guys, we're rebuilding on defense the last couple years.'

"I'm eager to not only watch, but I'm going to get a chance to talk to Josh today. For me, I know the quarterbacks in this league that are successful, they play in one system, they play a long time in that system. The terminology, it doesn't change because you want that quarterback to grow. I want to see how much Josh has learned from the system that they had and how much of the new stuff did he put in, and did he tweak the terminology? And then from Sam, from last year to this year, where he is, is the kinds of things I want to find out."

All these quotes are meaningless.

And like you said the old coaching staff is gone and some are making it a very LOOONNNGGG goodbye

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know what conversation you are looking for that has not already been had. So, why?

If you wanted people to say McD was a douche, you got your way. None of it matters now.

The old coaching staff is gone.

The CBA is new.

We won't know if anything (winning) changes until the season progresses.

Just let it go.

I don't care about McD, Spags, Shurmer, last offseason, or last season. I care about this season and the seasons to come under Fisher and company.

Just saw this. Conversation is conversation. If people aren't interested they won't participate. I don;t know what people will say. I don't "expect" them to say anything in particular.

And it's in the present because Bradford and Fisher both brought it up. Bradford is now flat stating that given his experience now the lack of an off-season and the rushed install last year stands out in comparison. That's just a common example of something that's really very normal--a year later, players say things about the previous year they had never said before. That's kind of interesting.

And. That has an effect on how we evaluate the team. How much of last year was a talent issue. How much was injuries. How much of the dysfunction on offense in the early games was due to the install. That all has ramifications for how we each assess the entire offense, the talent Fisher inherited (or didn't, depending on your POV). It has ramifications for how we look at Bradford.

We're all asking the same questions and turning over different stones trying to get a picture. This is one of the stones.

I don't think it is ever fair to characterize a poster's motives negatively. I certainly wasn't thinking any of the things you came up with.

It's one thread on one topic that is part of the mix of topics. There's nothing wrong with raising it and there is no "not letting go" of stuff--again, how we read the offensive performance last year has a direct effect on how we are seeing the offense's potential THIS year.

You might not care about those things but that does not automatically mean other people have bad reasons FOR caring. You might not be interested but that might just be you.

 

[DR RAM]

I don't know what conversation you are looking for that has not already been had. So, why?

If you wanted people to say McD was a douche, you got your way. None of it matters now.

The old coaching staff is gone.

The CBA is new.

We won't know if anything (winning) changes until the season progresses.

Just let it go.

I don't care about McD, Spags, Shurmer, last offseason, or last season. I care about this season and the seasons to come under Fisher and company.

Just saw this. Conversation is conversation. If people aren't interested they won't participate. I don;t know what people will say. I don't "expect" them to say anything in particular.

And it's in the present because Bradford and Fisher both brought it up. Bradford is now flat stating that given his experience now the lack of an off-season and the rushed install last year stands out in comparison. That's just a common example of something that's really very normal--a year later, players say things about the previous year they had never said before. That's kind of interesting.

And. That has an effect on how we evaluate the team. How much of last year was a talent issue. How much was injuries. How much of the dysfunction on offense in the early games was due to the install. That all has ramifications for how we each assess the entire offense, the talent Fisher inherited (or didn't, depending on your POV). It has ramifications for how we look at Bradford.

We're all asking the same questions and turning over different stones trying to get a picture. This is one of the stones.

I don't think it is ever fair to characterize a poster's motives negatively. I certainly wasn't thinking any of the things you came up with.

It's one thread on one topic that is part of the mix of topics. There's nothing wrong with raising it and there is no "not letting go" of stuff--again, how we read the offensive performance last year has a direct effect on how we are seeing the offense's potential THIS year.

You might not care about those things but that does not automatically mean other people have bad reasons FOR caring. You might not be interested but that might just be you.

You should follow what you suggest.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know what conversation you are looking for that has not already been had. So, why?

If you wanted people to say McD was a douche, you got your way. None of it matters now.

The old coaching staff is gone.

The CBA is new.

We won't know if anything (winning) changes until the season progresses.

Just let it go.

I don't care about McD, Spags, Shurmer, last offseason, or last season. I care about this season and the seasons to come under Fisher and company.

Just saw this. Conversation is conversation. If people aren't interested they won't participate. I don;t know what people will say. I don't "expect" them to say anything in particular.

And it's in the present because Bradford and Fisher both brought it up. Bradford is now flat stating that given his experience now the lack of an off-season and the rushed install last year stands out in comparison. That's just a common example of something that's really very normal--a year later, players say things about the previous year they had never said before. That's kind of interesting.

And. That has an effect on how we evaluate the team. How much of last year was a talent issue. How much was injuries. How much of the dysfunction on offense in the early games was due to the install. That all has ramifications for how we each assess the entire offense, the talent Fisher inherited (or didn't, depending on your POV). It has ramifications for how we look at Bradford.

We're all asking the same questions and turning over different stones trying to get a picture. This is one of the stones.

I don't think it is ever fair to characterize a poster's motives negatively. I certainly wasn't thinking any of the things you came up with.

It's one thread on one topic that is part of the mix of topics. There's nothing wrong with raising it and there is no "not letting go" of stuff--again, how we read the offensive performance last year has a direct effect on how we are seeing the offense's potential THIS year.

You might not care about those things but that does not automatically mean other people have bad reasons FOR caring. You might not be interested but that might just be you.

You should follow what you suggest.

I do.

So I don;t know what you mean.

 

[DR RAM]

I don't know what conversation you are looking for that has not already been had. So, why?

If you wanted people to say McD was a douche, you got your way. None of it matters now.

The old coaching staff is gone.

The CBA is new.

We won't know if anything (winning) changes until the season progresses.

Just let it go.

I don't care about McD, Spags, Shurmer, last offseason, or last season. I care about this season and the seasons to come under Fisher and company.

Just saw this. Conversation is conversation. If people aren't interested they won't participate. I don;t know what people will say. I don't "expect" them to say anything in particular.

And it's in the present because Bradford and Fisher both brought it up. Bradford is now flat stating that given his experience now the lack of an off-season and the rushed install last year stands out in comparison. That's just a common example of something that's really very normal--a year later, players say things about the previous year they had never said before. That's kind of interesting.

And. That has an effect on how we evaluate the team. How much of last year was a talent issue. How much was injuries. How much of the dysfunction on offense in the early games was due to the install. That all has ramifications for how we each assess the entire offense, the talent Fisher inherited (or didn't, depending on your POV). It has ramifications for how we look at Bradford.

We're all asking the same questions and turning over different stones trying to get a picture. This is one of the stones.

I don't think it is ever fair to characterize a poster's motives negatively. I certainly wasn't thinking any of the things you came up with.

It's one thread on one topic that is part of the mix of topics. There's nothing wrong with raising it and there is no "not letting go" of stuff--again, how we read the offensive performance last year has a direct effect on how we are seeing the offense's potential THIS year.

You might not care about those things but that does not automatically mean other people have bad reasons FOR caring. You might not be interested but that might just be you.

You should follow what you suggest.

I do.

So I don;t know what you mean.

LOL. Peace.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know what conversation you are looking for that has not already been had. So, why?

If you wanted people to say McD was a douche, you got your way. None of it matters now.

The old coaching staff is gone.

The CBA is new.

We won't know if anything (winning) changes until the season progresses.

Just let it go.

I don't care about McD, Spags, Shurmer, last offseason, or last season. I care about this season and the seasons to come under Fisher and company.

Just saw this. Conversation is conversation. If people aren't interested they won't participate. I don;t know what people will say. I don't "expect" them to say anything in particular.

And it's in the present because Bradford and Fisher both brought it up. Bradford is now flat stating that given his experience now the lack of an off-season and the rushed install last year stands out in comparison. That's just a common example of something that's really very normal--a year later, players say things about the previous year they had never said before. That's kind of interesting.

And. That has an effect on how we evaluate the team. How much of last year was a talent issue. How much was injuries. How much of the dysfunction on offense in the early games was due to the install. That all has ramifications for how we each assess the entire offense, the talent Fisher inherited (or didn't, depending on your POV). It has ramifications for how we look at Bradford.

We're all asking the same questions and turning over different stones trying to get a picture. This is one of the stones.

I don't think it is ever fair to characterize a poster's motives negatively. I certainly wasn't thinking any of the things you came up with.

It's one thread on one topic that is part of the mix of topics. There's nothing wrong with raising it and there is no "not letting go" of stuff--again, how we read the offensive performance last year has a direct effect on how we are seeing the offense's potential THIS year.

You might not care about those things but that does not automatically mean other people have bad reasons FOR caring. You might not be interested but that might just be you.

You should follow what you suggest.

I do.

So I don;t know what you mean.

LOL. Peace.

I still don't know what you mean. Be cordial and explain. Fair enough?

 

[-X-]

I don't know if having an off-season would have helped much now that I read those quotes. And it's not just those quotes either. I've read some things after that, and besides that, and in addition to that. What strikes me as the most intriguing is this. And I focus on this a lot. Every week the playbook changed. Jackson said that, Bradford said that, McDaniels said that.

Standing alone, that's great. It really is. If you have players capable of digesting that, and are *experienced* enough to be pros at their craft, then that's the greatest thing ever. There's no stopping a team that can give the opposition something entirely different than what was on tape the week before. Or the week before that. Or the season up to that point. If the Rams had a team full of Brandon Lloyds, there would have been an entirely different turnout to the season. I'll bet the injuries would have been significantly less too. Well, maybe not significantly, but I'll bet there would have been less of them.

So what does that mean? McDaniels assessed the team and felt comfortable enough with their ability to mentally absorb what was being thrown at them. That speaks to the intelligence of the team as a whole, but as we all know, *knowing* something and *executing* something are entirely different things. And maybe they did execute it during the weekly practices leading up to the game. Maybe it looked good to him and Spags, and they felt comfortable going into the game with it. I can see that. But then you have to go up against teams like the 49ers, Ravens, Packers, Steelers, Seahawks (front 7), etc. Then it comes down to beating the man in front of you. Beating the corner off press. Holding your blocks. Recognizing blitz packages you may not have seen before. Maybe they ran their offensive plays against Spags' zone, and other defenses brought man coverage. Or vice-versa.

I don't know that an off-season would have done a whole lot with a team full of young players, but I suppose it would have helped some. That said, if it's constantly changing, then what would those full OTAs have done for you? Maybe they would have been better conditioned. Maybe they would have had some more experience with the plays. Maybe they would have been more confident with what they were doing.

They wouldn't have been any older, wiser, or more experienced though.

Well, maybe a little. Like 3 months worth.

 

[DR RAM]

I don't know if having an off-season would have helped much now that I read those quotes. And it's not just those quotes either. I've read some things after that, and besides that, and in addition to that. What strikes me as the most intriguing is this. And I focus on this a lot. Every week the playbook changed. Jackson said that, Bradford said that, McDaniels said that.

Standing alone, that's great. It really is. If you have players capable of digesting that, and are *experienced* enough to be pros at their craft, then that's the greatest thing ever. There's no stopping a team that can give the opposition something entirely different than what was on tape the week before. Or the week before that. Or the season up to that point. If the Rams had a team full of Brandon Lloyds, there would have been an entirely different turnout to the season. I'll bet the injuries would have been significantly less too. Well, maybe not significantly, but I'll bet there would have been less of them.

So what does that mean? McDaniels assessed the team and felt comfortable enough with their ability to mentally absorb what was being thrown at them. That speaks to the intelligence of the team as a whole, but as we all know, *knowing* something and *executing* something are entirely different things. And maybe they did execute it during the weekly practices leading up to the game. Maybe it looked good to him and Spags, and they felt comfortable going into the game with it. I can see that. But then you have to go up against teams like the 49ers, Ravens, Packers, Steelers, Seahawks (front 7), etc. Then it comes down to beating the man in front of you. Beating the corner off press. Holding your blocks. Recognizing blitz packages you may not have seen before. Maybe they ran their offensive plays against Spags' zone, and other defenses brought man coverage. Or vice-versa.

I don't know that an off-season would have done a whole lot with a team full of young players, but I suppose it would have helped some. That said, if it's constantly changing, then what would those full OTAs have done for you? Maybe they would have been better conditioned. Maybe they would have had some more experience with the plays. Maybe they would have been more confident with what they were doing.

They wouldn't have been any older, wiser, or more experienced though.

Well, maybe a little. Like 3 months worth.

The playbook has to change every week in the NFL, otherwise, you wouldn't be able to execute, but that doesn't mean that you throw plays away and start over. It means that you add new plays and looks every week.

Let me add this, as far as verbage goes, we are not talking brain surgery. Every play has a indicator for a specific player and what to do. You don't have to know all of it...just your part. The formation and receivers part usually come across first, so that the receiver can get out and line up. The snap count comes last, so that it is easiest to remember, and the receiver doesn't need to know it. If the receiver jumps offsides he is a dumbass, because he doesn't even hear the snap count.

 

[Anonymous]

That speaks to the intelligence of the team as a whole, but as we all know, *knowing* something and *executing* something are entirely different things. And maybe they did execute it during the weekly practices leading up to the game.

You had me right up to here.

I think what happened next is different from what you think happened next.

That they did not know the offense well enough to perform it as a coherent unit against the different looks they would get on offense. They knew the offense on paper but the timing and coherence was off executing it in real time. For me, the reason for that is they didn't have the reps. They didn't know how to execute this thing in real time.

I think the reason for that is because the plays all came with variations. They couldn't execute at a second nature level cause they never got enough time with the thing.

To me it's really telling that the running game worked and yet the passing game, everyone acted uncomfortable with it. A little "off."

It's not really the case that the entire offense would change week to week. I mean there's only so many routes and combinations. It's more like the gameplans were crafted to exploit a defensive weakness, and that would mean the collection of plays would change, but still at the heart of it there's knowing the routes and how they're executed, and in this case, everyone had to think too much cause they didn't really know it at the "in real time in real games" level.

Brian the S has a complex offense too, but they will know it better, all of them, when the games start. Just cause they will have repped it.

I don't know if I put any of that right.