in the midst of glory, one nagging doubt

[Anonymous]

This is from the PD. A JT article about how Fisher remains calm in the midst of the Rams preseason triumph.

Fisher not exactly elated

BY JIM THOMAS

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football ... d96f5.html

To the point where Fisher was asked if he was worried that his young team will suddenly feel like they've got everything figured out.

"No. No, no," Fisher said. "Because there were enough mistakes in that game to correct to keep their attention and keep them focused."

At the top of the list is third-down efficiency on both sides of the ball.

"We've got to get better on offense and we've got to get significantly better on defense," Fisher said. "We're over 61 percent conversion rate on defense, which will do you no good over the regular season.""

To invent a quotation from Pirates of the Caribbean, when Fisher says they're over 61 percent conversion rate on defense, "which will do you no good over the regular season," that there be understatement.

Actually it's 62% and it's last in the league. After 2 preseason games sure but then, that's one of the things you don't want to be last in, and it's also one of those things that can carry over to a season.

Just to give you some perspective---last year, Quinn was a rookie, Robbins had tanked, they had no corners so had to cover up for them which altered the entire defensive approach to the point where they weren't playing the defense they were trained and designed to play. They were constantly playing from behind and therefore at a disadvantage.

And they still 18th in the league in 3rd down percentage. Down from 2nd in 2010. Heck when the Rams were bloody awful in 2009, they were 29th at 44%.

To give you an idea of how bad that is, I looked at who was last in 3rd down percentage going back to 2000. Why back to 2000? It's enough, I got tired of it. So 2000 will do. In that entire period, there is no "last in the league" percentage that is higher than 50%. Mostly the last in the league is around 46%, 47%.

I am kind of wondering if this is the kind of issue you fix in a week. Is there something structurally wrong with this defense? And if there is--it won't reduce to one thing. It won't be simple. No one will get away with blaming it all on one guy, coach or player. Something like this would be structural and have many causes.

And when I looked at the numbers, no one I saw was ever as bad as 62% in the preseason. I mean. As far back as I looked, no one was that bad,

This one, in short, bears watching.

 

[Angry Ram]

I'm not putting that much stock into it. Looks like they are playing a lot of coverage including that damn cover 2. I don't think I even saw a blitz once in 2 preseason games.

But Fisher sees it, so I'll trust him more than my opinion. B/c you won't be able 2 blitz every down. Duh.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm not putting that much stock into it. Looks like they are playing a lot of coverage including that damn cover 2. I don't think I even saw a blitz once in 2 preseason games.

But Fisher sees it, so I'll trust him more than my opinion. B/c you won't be able 2 blitz every down. Duh.

Yeah, but, there have been teams every preseason that did all the things you describe. Did not blitz, played cover 2. And no one--nobody--going back to 2000 was ever as high as 62%. Regular or pre-season.

And in fact the Rams D in 2010 was 2nd in the league in 3rd down conversions without blitzing.

 

[-X-]

61 percent is pretty damn high. They were moving the ball really well considering dwayne bowe wasn't even playing.

But, this is not one of my concerns.



Sent via Tapatalk2.

 

[PhxRam]

61 percent is pretty damn high. They were moving the ball really well considering dwayne bowe wasn't even playing.

But, this is not one of my concerns.



Sent via Tapatalk2.

How many attempts are we talking about here.

 

[Anonymous]

61 percent is pretty damn high. They were moving the ball really well considering dwayne bowe wasn't even playing.

But, this is not one of my concerns.



Sent via Tapatalk2.

How many attempts are we talking about here.

Percentages are percentages.

Other teams in the last decade have had both more and fewer attempts and yet no one has had that percentage. 62% is really bad. Let's put it this way. If they cut it down to 48%, that would be about level with traditional "ranked 32, worst in the league" percentages.

If they don't fix this--and it's a tall order to fix it--it will become a concern for everyone.

 

[PhxRam]

Well we are talking a small sample here. 62% and 40% could be the difference of 1 play.

What's the percentage against the 1's
How about the 2's

 

[Anonymous]

Well we are talking a small sample here. 62% and 40% could be the difference of 1 play.

What's the percentage against the 1's
How about the 2's

Again, other teams play 1s and 2s in the preseason. And going back to 2000 no one else has had 62%.

Now it's not 4 games yet. 4 games would be the real red flag. Right now, though, it ain't good.

There's a reason it ain't good. Something like a third down percentage does not depend on one play or player here or there. It is a structural thing involving, probably, a combination of the players, the strategy, and the playcalling. So this is not case where you just "start Y instead of Z and fix it."

 

[PhxRam]

Well we are talking a small sample here. 62% and 40% could be the difference of 1 play.

What's the percentage against the 1's
How about the 2's

Again, other teams play 1s and 2s in the preseason. And going back to 2000 no one else has had 62%.

And again. With such a small sample of 2 games you can't draw any conclusions when 1-2 plays could be the difference of being the worst to the best.

 

[Anonymous]

Well we are talking a small sample here. 62% and 40% could be the difference of 1 play.

What's the percentage against the 1's
How about the 2's

Again, other teams play 1s and 2s in the preseason. And going back to 2000 no one else has had 62%.

And again. With such a small sample of 2 games you can't draw any conclusions when 1-2 plays could be the difference of being the worst to the best.

It';s a red flag no matter what. The reason it's a red flag no matter what is because it points to structural issues that may be part of the defensive personnel or the defensive strategy or both.

And no one goes from worst to best in defensive erd down percentage from one game to the next.

And no it's not 1 or 2 plays.

If it were 1 or 2 plays someone else in the last decade would have gotten 62%. It's like a qb throwing 3 INTs a game. You don't go "well that just happens." Actually no it doesn't.

 

[PhxRam]

I am sorry. 3-4 plays. 3 plays puts them at 50%, 4 plays brings them within average.

The Colts game is what is really skewing the numbers. I really wouldn't put much stock in those numbers.

How about we wait until preseason is done until we start drawing correlations.

 

[Anonymous]

I am sorry. 3-4 plays. 3 plays puts them at 50%, 4 plays brings them within average.

The Colts game is what is really skewing the numbers. I really wouldn't put much stock in those numbers.

How about we wait until preseason is done until we start drawing correlations.

I'm sorry in return but all 32 other teams are in that exact same position every game and no one has come up with 62% for a preseason. If it improves to even 46% that's the norm for 32nd in the league.

So to me what you;re saying is like this--if I said the qb threw 3-4 INTS you can't just go "but that's just 3 or 4 plays." If after 2 games he was throwing 3-4 INTS per game I doubt anyone would go "well that happens." Yeah, it happens to qbs who throw lots of INTs.

Anyway. No one drew conclusions. I pointed to a red flag. Rather, I pointed to the fact that Fisher was pointing to a red flag.

It;s not just any red flag. It's strange that this would happen in the first place, and it;s not the kind of thing that is just statistical accident.

For that matter, the Steelers against the Colts allowed 6 3rd down conversions on 15 attempts. That's 40%. Which btw if made a ranking across an entire preseason would be ranked in the high 20s. (That gives one a perspective on where it stands as a number.)

 

[bluecoconuts]

I don't know why we're trying to look for reasons to scream that the sky is falling. Frankly I don't give a shit what percentages are, the only percent that matters is winning percentage.


That being said, obviously Fisher wants to work on that, because he is the coach and that's what he does. He finds good things with every bad game and bad things with every good game. Keep guys improving, don't let them get too high or too low, no different from any coach. There's no reason to start building bomb shelters after two preseason games. We should know by now preseason doesn't mean a thing. In Bradford's rookie year, he didn't throw a single INT in the preseason. In week 1 he threw 3 (or was it 2?).... Point is regular season and preseason are two very different games. Evaluate individual players in preseason, team statistics are rarely a correct representation of where team will be come regular season.

 

[Yamahopper]

This is a good post. And yes it is a concern if The Fish says it is.
But such a small sample size and the intermixing of 1's 2's and scrubs skews it. At the mid point of the season this would be much more valid sample set.
What also can factor in is 1st down conversion rate on 1st and 2nd down. it's possible to have a great 3rd down % while giving it up on 1st and 2nd down.

Dallas will be a good test since the 1's will play into the 3rd giving a better read. Maybe this trip we can hold Demarco Murray under a quarter of a thousand yards.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know why we're trying to look for reasons to scream that the sky is falling. .

Oh, that one's easy. I'm not.

I am a hardcore realist. If the coach himself is pointing to a red flag issue I say so. If people think there's a problem when I think it's too soon to say so, I say that too. So for example, I have noticed over the years that the first preseason game is too soon to assume an OL will have problems. You generally want to wait until preseason game 3 to draw any tentative conclusions about how the line looks. I have also noticed over the years that if a team has problems with defensive 3rd down conversions, that's usually structural, indicates more than one thing, and is not easily fixed. Fisher pointed to a red flag. I just simply said yes, it's a red flag that seriously bears watching.

I will say this. When I am screaming, or when I do think the sky is falling, you'll know it. Otherwise I'm just a realist fan in conversation with other fans....many of whom are realists too.

 

[Angry Ram]

I noticed a lot of those 3rd down conversions were given up by just a yard or 2. Like 3rd and 10, they give up 11 yards. That's what is so frustrating. But, again...2 preseason games, where 6 out of 8 quarters were mostly played by backups and 3rd stringers, I wouldn't put much stock into it. Obviously Fisher does, b/c he's the coach and that's his job. But I don't think fans should worry about it.

 

[Anonymous]

I noticed a lot of those 3rd down conversions were given up by just a yard or 2. Like 3rd and 10, they give up 11 yards. That's what is so frustrating. But, again...2 preseason games, where 6 out of 8 quarters were mostly played by backups and 3rd stringers, I wouldn't put much stock into it. Obviously Fisher does, b/c he's the coach and that's his job. But I don't think fans should worry about it.

Again, 2 preseson games with a conversion allowed rate that bad is a red flag. No matter what. Just as Bradford throwing 6 INTs in 3 games would be a red flag. And remember, if they even improve to the high 40% in percentage terms, they are still in the running to be ranked in the 30s during the season. Also. All the other teams that never got 62%--and that includes a lot of teams ranked extremely low at this stat--were also playing backups and 3rd stringers in the preseason.

Now why would that be an issue. I mean it's obvious. Think of it this way. If this actually is a problem we will have to revise our idea of what this team can do. Previously, we were thinking, it can hang in there with a young, relatively green, ball control offense. If this kind of defensive performance continues, to be in games, it will have to be an aggressive, attack style, high-scoring offense.

So we don't want that, I assume, because I assume most people don't think this offense is ready to be a high-scoring, shoot-out winning style offense.

Fisher drew attention to it. It's a genuine issue and bears watching.

 

[Faceplant]

It is an alarming stat for sure. I have noticed it with my own eyes after watching both games multiple times. The Rams give up the entire middle of the field it seems. I am not sure if that is just the nature of this cover 2 (if anyone) scheme or what, but the Colts and the Chefs made it looks easy across the middle against our D. I expected to see more press coverage out of these corners, and I am sure we will once the games count, but I am sure Fish will make it a priority this week in practice.

 

[DR RAM]

It is an alarming stat for sure. I have noticed it with my own eyes after watching both games multiple times. The Rams give up the entire middle of the field it seems. I am not sure if that is just the nature of this cover 2 (if anyone) scheme or what, but the Colts and the Chefs made it looks easy across the middle against our D. I expected to see more press coverage out of these corners, and I am sure we will once the games count, but I am sure Fish will make it a priority this week in practice.

I really just think that Fisher isn't showing his hand.

 

[Anonymous]

It is an alarming stat for sure. I have noticed it with my own eyes after watching both games multiple times. The Rams give up the entire middle of the field it seems. I am not sure if that is just the nature of this cover 2 (if anyone) scheme or what, but the Colts and the Chefs made it looks easy across the middle against our D. I expected to see more press coverage out of these corners, and I am sure we will once the games count, but I am sure Fish will make it a priority this week in practice.

If I had to bet? They could fix it, relatively speaking, and given that, they probably still won't be ranked high at this during the real season.

IMO it's a combo of scheme and players. Some players are not right for the scheme, or they don't have enough key players everywhere to run the scheme, or the scheme itself needs adjusting, or they need a lot more experience in the scheme, or all or some of the above. In short, it's not just a couple of fixable things. Youth, misfits, holes, scheme.

If what I say is true we could see big improvement between 2012 and 2013--but I am guessing right now, not big improvement in 2012.

For those who don't like Bad News From Realists, naturally I would like to be wrong about that.