I'm not sure Coach Fisher is the answer because...

[blue4]

Who appointed Williams? Who drafted the talent? Who decided to change his DC every year?

Williams wasn't an unknown.


There's nothing wrong with the talent level.


They sucked so he fired them, what else could he have done?

 

[moklerman]

Bull. You play to win. If we had kicked a field goal and Dallas still won, people would have whined that Fisher played it too safe.

The Rams were owning the LOS. They made the right call. I would have made that same call.

Playing to win means scoring points. This wasn't a case where they were down by 25 and HAVING to score a TD. This was extending their lead to 7 so if the defense can't hold, they still have a tie. The smart, correct call was to kick the FG. The emotional call was to go for it and it cost them.

 

[Marq]

It bothers me some of the player Evaluations this bunch does...they didn't seem to notice A Davis's seemingly decent abilities , cut him A coupla times.....they draft running backs high that never seem to play....or they give up 2 draft picks for a 175 pound receiver ...or get a TE with hands of stone in crunch time, and Fisher coached this guy before....don't have plan B for the Bradford injury...claim a qb of waivers for a half mil a year, yet seem to have the same guy in Davis...

To be fair, they have found some jewels like " the leg " and Stacy....

Which reminds me...why do we punt a lot when whe are in obviously " the legs " range ?

e

Think about this Davis is young, has been exposed to the playbook for awhile now, been cut and looked over for the likes of Clemons, came in and played decent against Minnesota, gritted a win in Tampa, not given a nod, we will look at the tape or even a shoulder shrug but a flat out Hill is the starter and then play a team, that despite their ups and downs are still intimidating to young players because of years of hype, and basically kicked their teeth in. If they can't see this kid has heart, a little gunslinger with a touch of IT factor for the cost of a gallon of milk..... kick them all out. This is where I miss Dicky V. we would have rallied around the kid and seen what happened. If anything we will find out if we need to draft a QB high. Something else it's not what Cook did it's how the players responded that says a lot about how the team might feel about Davis.

 

[Ram Quixote]

I'm going to tell you guys a little story. Back in 2012, my old boss and I had a gentleman's agreement regarding our teams (he's hawk fan). After we beat them at home that year, we talked and he was not sure about Russell Wilson being named the starter at the beginning of the season. Thought Carroll had made a mistake. Of course, we know how that turned out.

Fisher, just like most HCs, isn't going to listen to fans, but he will make an informed decision where Hill and Davis is concerned. I have faith.

 

[iamme33]

For all of you doubters;

Jeff Fisher (and Les Snead) are without a doubt the only people in all of the NFL who are smart enough, innovative enough, and the best judges of talent and character to turn the Rams into a winning organization.

Just ask them.

should that be in blue

 

[jrry32]

Playing to win means scoring points. This wasn't a case where they were down by 25 and HAVING to score a TD. This was extending their lead to 7 so if the defense can't hold, they still have a tie. The smart, correct call was to kick the FG. The emotional call was to go for it and it cost them.

The smart, correct call is to go for it when, as you just said, your defense isn't getting stops. Our offense was moving the ball at will. No reason to go into Spags mode.

I agree, playing to win means scoring points. 7 points > 3 points.

 

[moklerman]

The smart, correct call is to go for it when, as you just said, your defense isn't getting stops. Our offense was moving the ball at will. No reason to go into Spags mode.

I agree, playing to win means scoring points. 7 points > 3 points.

3 points>0 points(+field position).

You're making a huge assumption that they would score a TD on that drive and it by no means was a given. At that stage of the game, you take the 3 points even though it's a little disappointing and still come away with a positive overall.

You risk a 4th down conversion just in the hope that you can manage to get a TD and you're really ratcheting up the risk. In this case, not only did the Rams not get points, they reinforced and continued the momentum that Dallas had.

In this case, kicking FG's would have kept Dallas at bay. On this drive, a FG extends the lead to 7. Dallas went down and kicked their own FG so the lead would have been back to 4 and the Rams would be up by 7 again with the next FG and the pick 6 wouldn't have killed them. Instead of being down two scores, they could have still tied it.

You just don't pass on 29 yard FG's when you don't have to. You especially don't do it when you have a lead.

 

[Sleepy1711]

3 points>0 points(+field position).

You're making a huge assumption that they would score a TD on that drive and it by no means was a given. At that stage of the game, you take the 3 points even though it's a little disappointing and still come away with a positive overall.

You risk a 4th down conversion just in the hope that you can manage to get a TD and you're really ratcheting up the risk. In this case, not only did the Rams not get points, they reinforced and continued the momentum that Dallas had.

In this case, kicking FG's would have kept Dallas at bay. On this drive, a FG extends the lead to 7. Dallas went down and kicked their own FG so the lead would have been back to 4 and the Rams would be up by 7 again with the next FG and the pick 6 wouldn't have killed them. Instead of being down two scores, they could have still tied it.

You just don't pass on 29 yard FG's when you don't have to. You especially don't do it when you have a lead.

I get the disappointment but if that play would've worked and if they go up 7 points.. Would Fisher be a hero right now?? I mean hindsight is fantastic but its only game 3 and there's like 13 more to go.. lets wait til the end of the season before you guys bring out the torches and pitchforks.

 

[jrry32]

3 points>0 points(+field position).

You're making a huge assumption that they would score a TD on that drive and it by no means was a given. At that stage of the game, you take the 3 points even though it's a little disappointing and still come away with a positive overall.

Or you don't. You go for 7 because you are a few inches from a first down and your OL has been dominating.

It's not a huge assumption. They were inside the red-zone.

You risk a 4th down conversion just in the hope that you can manage to get a TD and you're really ratcheting up the risk. In this case, not only did the Rams not get points, they reinforced and continued the momentum that Dallas had.

And what does a FG do to stop that momentum? Nothing. Yep, you're taking a risk. That's what great coaches do. They're aggressive when the situation calls for it. They don't act like Spags. Bill Belichick has always been known for his aggression in going for 4th downs. Chip Kelly is known for it. It's 4th and Inches. You take that risk with what the running game had been doing. The play-call, it sucked. The risk, it did not. Correct call given the context.

In this case, kicking FG's would have kept Dallas at bay. On this drive, a FG extends the lead to 7. Dallas went down and kicked their own FG so the lead would have been back to 4 and the Rams would be up by 7 again with the next FG and the pick 6 wouldn't have killed them. Instead of being down two scores, they could have still tied it.

It doesn't keep Dallas at bay. If we really want to take this stance, that play was irrelevant because if Cook would have caught the TD later on...the Rams would have ultimately been up by 8 anyways.

You just don't pass on 29 yard FG's when you don't have to. You especially don't do it when you have a lead.

Lol what? That's when you can afford to take a risk. When you're tied or trailing in a close game, you don't want to take the risk. When you have the lead, you can afford risks like that. Especially when their defense can't stop your offense and your defense can't stop their offense.

 

[Ramatik]

It has been almost a decade now since the Rams last made the playoffs. That long of a period of time has people growing frustrated and impatient, but with good reason. Throw in the worst five year stretch in nfl history too. It just sucks to see other teams continually in the playoff hunt but we can't get there. The Patriots, Steelers, Colts, Packers to name a few. Also we have seen other teams start over and rebuild and become successful in a short time. We have all witnessed a lot of teams get new coaches and do well. The Seahawks are just one example. We are so hungry for a winner but when you start approaching a decade of not being in the playoffs and you get what we have now. The best way to build a winner is to have stability. Just look at the good teams who are in it every year. Barring a complete meltdown we should let them finish out their contract. I know some people may not want to hear that but if you get a new regime after this year that will likely be a setback. I just don't know what to think. I'm just taking it week by week. This was a tough loss. But I have to say I will be disappointed if Davis is not allowed to keep starting. Hill is not a long term answer. Let's see if Davis can be.

I wonder, are there any teams that had a "fast turnaround" that were able to sustain it? Don't most of the fast turnarounds flare up and fade out pretty quickly?

I'm not sure the S'hawks have a dynasty. I'm thinking they don't. The Chiefs obviously don't.

 

[Ramatik]

What craft is that, lol? All I suggested is that it might be better to have more of a mix of young players and veterans, mentors like Kenny Britt if you will. Ask some of the wide receivers, especially Brian Quick, how valuable that is. Look, I would rather have a young team than a bunch of over-the-hill players. We've seen that with the Rams team of the past and know it doesn't work. There's a happy medium however.

In your example you have a group made up of young players. The last few years they brought in experienced vets. This year they got one. One experienced vet and now the recvrs are looking so much better. There is an experienced vet in the LB corps, the D Line just needs Long back. There are exp vets on the O Line. Running backs don't need one. TE have one. I would have liked one in the Secondary, but I guess there is only so much cap money to spread around and fulfill your wish list. I am starting to like the young talent back there, and I expect them to make some bonehead mistakes. But I like the potential. Sorry, but this was the crappiest roster in the league. Since maybe, Tampa Bay's inaugural team. This team is being built to last. It would be so wonderful to get lucky and find a pro bowler off the street or in the draft. But that is hard, and it takes some luck.

 

[Ramatik]

No way. There was way too much time left in the game and a gimme FG to put the Rams up by 7 was the much smarter play. This team, especially the way the game was going, can't afford to just give points away.

When your O Line is dominating? And you have a chance to put your foot on their neck?

You would play it safe with a whimper?

They should have had that. The could have had that.

That is what needs to be fixed, is how to get a freakin' inch!

Now that it was a stupid call.

This team needs to learn how to handle the pressure and perform!

Execute Dammit!

 

[Rmfnlt]

I agree with those that say Fisher is an average coach... he's been a head coach for 18 years (throwing out that first year in Houston). During that time, he's had:
6 winning seasons
5 - .500 seasons
7 losing seasons

Not that impressive IMO.

But forgetting history, it's the lack of discipline that's really annoying. He keeps saying they'll fix it, but - yesterday - 8 penalties for -119 yards. I know a couple were very questionable, but that still leaves ~6 and probably a fair amount of yards. And, it's the timing of them.... seem to always come at the most inopportune times.

This team just doesn't seem to be well coached. Like a CEO of a company, the man in charge is responsible.

 

[Sleepy1711]

But forgetting history, it's the lack of discipline that's really annoying. He keeps saying they'll fix it, but - yesterday - 8 penalties for -119 yards. I know a couple were very questionable, but that still leaves ~6 and probably a fair amount of yards. And, it's the timing of them.... seem to always come at the most inopportune times.

I"m guessing your including the few bogus calls also right?? I mean that makes up at least 25 yards of BS! Cuz, there was no roughing the passer and pass interference or holding on sims. I'm sure there are others that I missed but not all of them are on the players and the coach. I've seen a lot of BS calls against the Rams in the past and they still continue.

 

[moklerman]

Or you don't. You go for 7 because you are a few inches from a first down and your OL has been dominating.

It's not a huge assumption. They were inside the red-zone.



And what does a FG do to stop that momentum? Nothing. Yep, you're taking a risk. That's what great coaches do. They're aggressive when the situation calls for it. They don't act like Spags. Bill Belichick has always been known for his aggression in going for 4th downs. Chip Kelly is known for it. It's 4th and Inches. You take that risk with what the running game had been doing. The play-call, it sucked. The risk, it did not. Correct call given the context.



It doesn't keep Dallas at bay. If we really want to take this stance, that play was irrelevant because if Cook would have caught the TD later on...the Rams would have ultimately been up by 8 anyways.



Lol what? That's when you can afford to take a risk. When you're tied or trailing in a close game, you don't want to take the risk. When you have the lead, you can afford risks like that. Especially when their defense can't stop your offense and your defense can't stop their offense.

Scoring points was going to slow Dallas' momentum a heckuva lot more than a turnover on downs. Dallas had scored 17 unanswered points and the Rams needed to halt that. Going for it on 4th down was an unnecessary risk and not the smart play. This play didn't call for aggression it called for wisdom and experience. Fans want the team to go for it on 4th down, good coaches know when to take the points.

It was a desperation move in a game that was rapidly slipping away from the Rams. And it cost them. Do you really feel this team can afford to give away ANY points?

 

[jrry32]

Scoring points was going to slow Dallas' momentum a heckuva lot more than a turnover on downs. Dallas had scored 17 unanswered points and the Rams needed to halt that. Going for it on 4th down was an unnecessary risk and not the smart play. This play didn't call for aggression it called for wisdom and experience. Fans want the team to go for it on 4th down, good coaches know when to take the points.

It was a desperation move in a game that was rapidly slipping away from the Rams. And it cost them. Do you really feel this team can afford to give away ANY points?

Yes.

The reward outweighed the risk. From 2009 to 2013(5 year period), there were 675 rushing plays on 4th and 1 or less. 66.1% of those rushing plays resulted in a first down. Over that same period of time, kickers converted 90.1% of FGs(1418 attempts) between the 10 and 20 yard line.

That means there was a 2/3 chance that the Rams would convert that first down if we're looking at the league average. The Rams were also on the Cowboys 15 and were running the ball with ease...both of which are factors that further mitigated the risk. The Rams defense was struggling to stop Dallas and Dallas had scored 17 unanswered points. You are looking at a 24.0% difference between hitting a FG in that situation and running for a first down.

In that situation, the risk outweighs the reward. Had the Rams defense been shutting Dallas down, I would have said, "Kick the FG". But with the defense playing the way they were, there was no reason to expect that they would stop Dallas from scoring. The Rams needed to keep Dallas on their heels. They needed to push for that two score lead.

The aggression there was warranted.

Here's something even more interesting...as sucky as the Rams have been from 2009 to 2013, we have converted 78.9% of our 4th and 1 or less yards rushing attempts for first downs. We have converted 90.0% of FGs between the 10 and 20 yard line over that time. That's an 11.1% difference for our team.

As I said before, the reward outweighed the risk.

 

[mr.stlouis]

Well, winning cures all. We lost yesterday, thus for, threads like this occur.

 

[moklerman]

Yes.

The reward outweighed the risk. From 2009 to 2013(5 year period), there were 675 rushing plays on 4th and 1 or less. 66.1% of those rushing plays resulted in a first down. Over that same period of time, kickers converted 90.1% of FGs(1418 attempts) between the 10 and 20 yard line.

That means there was a 2/3 chance that the Rams would convert that first down if we're looking at the league average. The Rams were also on the Cowboys 15 and were running the ball with ease...both of which are factors that further mitigated the risk. The Rams defense was struggling to stop Dallas and Dallas had scored 17 unanswered points. You are looking at a 24.0% difference between hitting a FG in that situation and running for a first down.

In that situation, the risk outweighs the reward. Had the Rams defense been shutting Dallas down, I would have said, "Kick the FG". But with the defense playing the way they were, there was no reason to expect that they would stop Dallas from scoring. The Rams needed to keep Dallas on their heels. They needed to push for that two score lead.

The aggression there was warranted.

Here's something even more interesting...as sucky as the Rams have been from 2009 to 2013, we have converted 78.9% of our 4th and 1 or less yards rushing attempts for first downs. We have converted 90.0% of FGs between the 10 and 20 yard line over that time. That's an 11.1% difference for our team.

As I said before, the reward outweighed the risk.

Your logic seems flawed. First of all, you can't take league averages when talking about the Rams in particular. What the rest of the league has done is essentially irrelevant.

But in terms of approach, I don't understand your thinking. If the Rams defense is struggling to keep Dallas from scoring, then giving up points is exactly the wrong thing to do. Of course you want a TD but on 4th and 1, it isn't worth the risk to give up easy points. Dallas was on a run so it was imperative for the Rams to put some points on the board.

We're not talking about being down 30-3 and kicking a FG like Spagnuolo would do. This was a strategic situation that called for an analytical approach rather than an emotional one. Those 3 points may seem trivial to you put it but the game in an entirely different dynamic when they chose to sacrifice them. The opposite would have been true had they taken them.

I agree that there is a time and place to be aggressive but this wasn't it. Scoring a TD wasn't the only way to slow Dallas' momentum but your argument suggests that the only way for the Rams to regain momentum was to make that 4th down. Which isn't the case. You also imply that had they made the first down, a TD was likely to follow which also isn't the case.

 

[jrry32]

Your logic seems flawed. First of all, you can't take league averages when talking about the Rams in particular. What the rest of the league has done is essentially irrelevant.

I gave you the Rams and the league...the Rams were significantly better than the league average.

But in terms of approach, I don't understand your thinking. If the Rams defense is struggling to keep Dallas from scoring, then giving up points is exactly the wrong thing to do. Of course you want a TD but on 4th and 1, it isn't worth the risk to give up easy points. Dallas was on a run so it was imperative for the Rams to put some points on the board.

You're in a shootout. 7 > 3

The risk of going for it and not making it is only slightly less than 1/4(24.0%) higher than the risk of kicking the field goal and missing it. That's not much. The reward is much greater.

We're not talking about being down 30-3 and kicking a FG like Spagnuolo would do. This was a strategic situation that called for an analytical approach rather than an emotional one. Those 3 points may seem trivial to you put it but the game in an entirely different dynamic when they chose to sacrifice them. The opposite would have been true had they taken them.

I gave you an analytical approach that supported my reasoning. You have failed to do so. So the accusation that my approach is emotional is dead and buried.

I agree that there is a time and place to be aggressive but this wasn't it. Scoring a TD wasn't the only way to slow Dallas' momentum but your argument suggests that the only way for the Rams to regain momentum was to make that 4th down. Which isn't the case. You also imply that had they made the first down, a TD was likely to follow which also isn't the case.

If they had made that first down, a TD wasn't likely to follow? Were you watching the same game as me? I am just going to quit this argument. If you can't even concede that point, you're far too entrenched in your stance to concede any ground.

 

[moklerman]

I gave you the Rams and the league...the Rams were significantly better than the league average.



You're in a shootout. 7 > 3

The risk of going for it and not making it is only slightly less than 1/4(24.0%) higher than the risk of kicking the field goal and missing it. That's not much. The reward is much greater.



I gave you an analytical approach that supported my reasoning. You have failed to do so. So the accusation that my approach is emotional is dead and buried.



If they had made that first down, a TD wasn't likely to follow? Were you watching the same game as me? I am just going to quit this argument. If you can't even concede that point, you're far too entrenched in your stance to concede any ground.

Has Zeurlein ever missed from that range? League average is irrelevant. If they make that first down, there is nothing likely about a TD succeeding it. Possible? Sure. Likely? No.

As far as scoring in the red zone being a given as you suggest, I think you're being ridiculous. In the very same game Cook dropped a TD. Anything can happen. To throw away a relatively sure 3 points in favor of a lot riskier shot at 7 was ill-advised and the end result of the game played out to clearly illustrate why. And it isn't just the risk of going for it on 4th down, you have to compound that with the success/failure rate of scoring in the red zone. It all stacks up to a lot lower chance for success than kicking a 29 yard FG.

When you're down and you need 7 because of time constraints, you go for it. When you're up and you can extend your lead to 7+, you take the FG. Not sure why you'd argue against that approach. Especially considering the end result of doing it the riskier way.

Let's look at it this way: which unit was in more need of support? The offense was moving the ball so there was really no motivation in going for it. Conversely, telling the defense that you don't think they can hold a 7 point lead and need a bigger cushion, is that going to inspire them? That's what going for it on 4th down was all about, right? Sending a message.