Just wanna get a few "Fisher issues" off my chest...

[Ram Quixote]

4) Can someone explain to me why the Rams showed up for the Redskin and Bears games looking absolutely unprepared? How is that even possible?

I will say it again: in the Bears game, we came out hot on Offense, scoring a TD on our first possession. Then, on the second possession, the refs called a bogus crack-back block on Brown. IIRC, that play got us a first down, which was wiped out on the penalty. First and 20; had to punt. Next, there was the fumble recovery on the punt in the Bears end of the field. First play was a Tavon TD, but that got called back on another bogus holding penalty on Grob. Had to settle for a FG. You tell me what was going on.

They didn't call a single penalty on the Bears that entire half (including a blatant false start by the RB, and an obvious hold on that screen pass to the RB), and by the end of it, the Rams were down 24-10. So don't tell me they weren't prepared for the Bears.

 

[LACHAMP46]

Great Post @Rams43

No easy answers....3 and 31....I gave up a 3rd and 31 once....and never started again...

It's a shame that our offense plays like that....It's a shame we're running Gurley down in a finished season...Lots of questions...But we're still worlds better than 2011

give fish a QB...lets see what he does....

 

[Dxmissile]

The only thing this team is missing is a qb some would argue WR too but we are seeing Fisher Vision for this team when he drafted all those young lineman when they are healthy they are playing very good are starting to really gel, and with the experience this year next year they are gonna be a lot better just look at GROB the last 3 games. Fisher had to GUT this team to get it competitive even the games we lost was because of terrible qb play no one not even myself and I never did like Foles would have thought he would be that terrible. This team can win with a qb like Keenum just imagine when Brees get here lol..

 

[Rams43]

While I tend to agree, and also get frustrated when he sits on a lead, I do understand the reasons why. Given the current personnel on offense (youth and number of backups), there is a guarded level of expectation of what they can handle.

It's one thing to go conservative and "protect a lead". It's another thing to risk making unnecessary mistakes which could put the lead in jeopardy. Until he has a proven cast on offense, the trust just isn't there that they can consistently make the play when they have to. The struggles on 3rd down overall this season certainly enters into the thought process.

As frustrating as it can be to watch him take the ball out of Keenum's hands on a 3rd & 5 in the middle of the 3rd quarter, it's ultimately better than having him force something which leads to a "pick six" (because we haven't seen any of those the past few years) and the lead is squandered.

Like it or not, with a weapon like Hekker, punting the ball can and has been an effective way to flip the field and win the field position game.

Maybe I'm the naive one here, but I do think as the players develop and gain more trust, Fisher will loosen the reigns and let them be more aggressive. But at this point in the overall development of the personnel, that trust just isn't there.

I guess I have a very rare disagreement with you on one point, CoachO.

And a very mild one, at that.

And, clearly, you are hardly naive.

It's about taking the ball out of Keenum's hands on 3rd and 5. ESPECIALLY with an 11 point lead in the mid 3rd qtr.

Here's my thinking.

Keenum has been pretty danged good at protecting the ball.
He certainly makes quicker decisions than Foles.
He's not the pick sixer that A Davis was.
He seems to have a better handle on reading D's. So if he sees a mismatch, why not take advantage?
He usually places the ball with accuracy (unlike Foles was doing, for example).
Players seem to make plays for him.

Sooooo...

I'm thinking, why not give him a little more rope? Especially when they already trust him to change out at LOS, anyway?

As an aside, I was really pleased to read your positive comments about Mannion in camp last summer. Hope that bears fruit.

 

[Roman Snow]

I am also in the camp of seeing Fisher as a net plus for our team. I don't get the thinking of those that want to hit the reset button. That is not always the answer. Stability at the top is generally good.

The offensive has gradually improved in the last few games. It's hard to look at that Seattle game and not think we were in control beyond a 6 point win. I was really hoping for US to score the late TD, to pull away. That garbage TD irked me.

With Keenum at the helm all year I believe we would be 8-7, 9-6 or, dare I say 10-5 (Pitt. Minn. Balt.) with some real excitement in the air. sigh...

The problem with Fisher that I do agree with is when he pulls back the offensive reins once we have a lead. FULL THROTTLE AHEAD!! Bury these pukes! is the approach we should be taking more. Trust in the quarterback and offensive personnel will go a long way to solving this as well.

We tend to look at Fishers decisions with such judgment. (Foles, Wells, J. Long, Pead, Quick, sticking with Bradford, etc.)

But, just like the draft, there are things in fate that are beyond our control. We just have to accept reality, deal with things as best we can with a good attitude, learn from mistakes and move forward. Sticking with Fisher is the wise choice. Kroenke knows this.

 

[CoachO]

I guess I have a very rare disagreement with you on one point, CoachO.

And a very mild one, at that.

And, clearly, you are hardly naive.

It's about taking the ball out of Keenum's hands on 3rd and 5. ESPECIALLY with an 11 point lead in the mid 3rd qtr.

Here's my thinking.

Keenum has been pretty danged good at protecting the ball.
He certainly makes quicker decisions than Foles.
He's not the pick sixer that A Davis was.
He seems to have a better handle on reading D's. So if he sees a mismatch, why not take advantage?
He usually places the ball with accuracy (unlike Foles was doing, for example).
Players seem to make plays for him.

Sooooo...

I'm thinking, why not give him a little more rope? Especially when they already trust him to change out at LOS, anyway?

As an aside, I was really pleased to read your positive comments about Mannion in camp last summer. Hope that bears fruit.

I'm not saying I disagree with you. I was merely trying convey what I perceive as the reasons why they have done what they've done.

To to the point of Keenum displaying all the things you mentioned .... That comes with time. Something he had not necessarily had time to show in the Baltimore or Detroit games.

And it's not solely about his trust level of Keenum. It's about the entire offense and the personnel in play now. Teams are more likely to bring pressure on 3rd down and we've seen more times than I can count where things aren't picked up by young inexperienced linemen (Robinson, Wichmann). Pick sixes aren't the only thing at risk. We've had our share of sack/fumbles.

Again, I'm not saying i like it. But I understand it.

 

[RamFan503]

Here are a few thoughts, comments, and questions that lead me to believe that Fisher is never gonna be the answer for our O.

I want to get these on the record while they're still fresh in my mind.

So, in no particular order, here goes...

1) CoachO made a couple of very revealing posts the other day. I'm paraphrasing in the interest of time and space, btw. In one he commented that Fisher has a tendency to take the ball out of the hands of his QB with even a modest lead. He referenced Keenum vs Ravens,

CoachO also made a different post stating that it was unreasonable to expect "video game numbers" from Keenum. That it was never gonna happen in this O.

2) I not only agree with both points, but have seen it in other games, as well. The Buc and second Seahawk games, for example. It cost us the Raven game and came close to biting Fisher in the butt in the other two. BTW, how could Fisher be the only person in the stadium that didn't notice that Keenum was concussed? That was the frosting on the cake in that Raven game fubar.

3) is it possible that Fisher waited a game or two too long to replace Foles with Keenum? Or Cigs with Boras? Or both? Sure seems so now, huh? Ya think?

4) Can someone explain to me why the Rams showed up for the Redskin and Bears games looking absolutely unprepared? How is that even possible?

5) Holding the mighty Steeler O to 12 points is a fine thing, but to only score 6 ourselves? Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...

6) Extending Foles' contract before a single snap in preseason? Because Fisher was so impressed with Foles' "leadership"? C'mon...

7) Lot's of head scratchers in this Seahawk game, too. Where to start? Well, how about his decision early on to go for the field goal on 4th and inches rather than for the 1st down and pursuing a TD? The game was scoreless and we were away vs a terrific team favored by double digits. GZ didn't look healthy all game long (flu or hip?). Why not go for the throat there and show some faith in your team? Could have been a biggie because the game was ultimately decided by just 6 points.

8) Only 207 yards of total O vs the Seahawks? Really? With a QB hardly ever pressured and never sacked. And never threw an int? With a 16-0 lead until very late in the first half? Now THAT's beyond conservative, if you ask me. In an ultimate 6 point game?

9) The decision to get cute and accept a holding penalty to make it 3rd and 31 rather than 4th and 21 forcing a punt just to improve field position? Sure enough, Wilson converts and goes on to score a "gift" TD. Wilson being a QB that Fisher always claims to respect and want to keep the ball out of his hands? THAT Wilson?

10) This game was a terrific victory, no doubt. But it required some outstanding D, including 2 forced fumbles (one for a TD), an int, plus two jaw dropping fumble recoveries by Barnes on that last TD drive. Those 7 points were critical because we won by only 6 points. Oh, did I already mention that?

Look, I could go on and on dissecting Fisher O decisions, but hopefully I've made my point.

He seems like a nice fellow and I'd probably enjoy having a beer with him. He certainly knows D and ST. But on O he's the anti Martz. Heck, he's the anti Arians.

And I don't think we'll ever have a strong O, much less a potent one, under Fisher. No matter what QB we have under center and with a healthy Gurley in the backfield. Fisher literally likes to sit on 11 point leads from the mid 3rd qtr on. We've seen it.

Thanks for reading this far. I actually feel a bit better. Lol.

Rant over...

1) I don't recall the reference CoachO made in the Ravens game and I don't agree that was the case in that game. Inept? Maybe. Suddenly going conservative when we weren't showing anything on offense anyway? M-okay.
2) I hate prevent defense and three yards and a cloud of dust as much as most fans but it was the right thing to do in those WINS. Trying to ask this offense to open up when a team is going to do everything turn you over is a bad play. Keep in mind that a desperate defense is going to give up tackles for the possibility of an INT or strip or helmet to the ball. Fisher knows that better than some of us fans that would like to see a first down pass when up big.
3) Sure it's possible. Seemingly even obvious to some of us fans. But that is a difficult decision to make in mid season and regardless of the fact that we suddenly started winning, the offense still isn't exactly lighting it up or changing a whole lot of what they do. Even though I may agree with you here and I never thought Foles was any kind of answer, I get why he went with what his OC wanted and didn't just shit can him early on.
4) Match-ups and game momentums are a funny thing. We were not as good as we thought we were at the time AND those teams came out and had a game plan to beat us. Sometimes it is just that simple. I rewatched both of those games (as I have with virtually every game this season) and the WA game was anything but a blow out. It was truly one of those games where a play here or there and we win. The Bears game - another story. But virtually every team has had those games this season - and pretty much every other season. What business did the Iggles have beating the patsies? Or the Falcons thumping the Panthers?
5) Holding the 4th ranked offense to 12 and our inept offense being held to 6 by the 11th ranked defense? Most at the time would have been surprised by a win there and if not for a dropped TD pass, we would have won.
6) A good risk. If Foles plays well, we score big time on the salary cap front. He didn't and his contract still doesn't hurt us much. Much ado about nothing.
7) Sigh. With what our O-line has shown in plays like this? I'm guessing next season we may go for this. In Seattle in the rain with an O-line that has shown a decent pass blocking ability but not a good run blocking ability against the #3 rushing defense in the league? Put up the three.
8) Managing a game when your defense is holding and your offense has not shown much ability to make a lot of plays tends to look more conservative than it is. As it was, we ran 12 times on 1st down and passed 9 times. That may say conservative to you but it says taking the plays that are available to me.
9) It would have been 4th and 10. On the hold, Seattle had a 12 yard gain. Yes we stopped them short of the 1st down but not the following conversion was for 13 yards. Kind of a moot point don't you think? Our defense gave up a 28 yard play to make it 4th and 3 instead of the 4th and 10 that it would have been. In the end - same result but better odds of getting to 4th and 31 than holding them at 4th and 10.
10) You're right. This was a terrific win against a playoff team that had been in the SB the previous two years, on a five game winning streak, at home, in one of the hardest venues to come out with a win, outdoors, in the rain, having lost the previous ten in that same venue..... I could go on.

This seems like a chicken and egg kind of thing to me. While I don't think Fisher will ever really want a "video game" type offense, I do thing that if the offense shows the ability to hit on bigger plays with any kind of consistency, he will loosen the reins.

I also think that while some want to see some kind of return to the GSOT, keep in mind that we scored all of 11 points on Tampa to get into the SB - including a miracle pass to Proehl - and scored all of 23 points to barely hold of Fisher's Titans. And then we scored 17 against the cheaters in the other SB during the GSOT days.

Having a team that can grind out tough wins is a pretty good recipe for winning the big games late in the season. I like this philosophy and as our offense gels, we will likely win a lot of 10 point games. I am none too excited by the idea of bringing in a new HC and think we have our HC of the future,

Go RAMS!!! All hail Jeff Fisher!!!

 

[RamFan503]

Maybe I'm the naive one here, but I do think as the players develop and gain more trust, Fisher will loosen the reigns and let them be more aggressive. But at this point in the overall development of the personnel, that trust just isn't there.

Totally agree.

 

[RamFan503]

But I do find it odd that we have an aggressive defense and aggressive special teams paired with a conservative offense .

And combine that with the trick plays, I don't buy that it is because Fisher WANTS to be THIS conservative on offense. Nor do I see this level of offense as where he is going in the future

 

[Athos]

Dunno how Fisher can still win you all over with his miserable out of conference record here.

Just winning in the div gets you nowhere if you don't win elsewhere.

His decision to take the penalty instead of accepting the 4th down imo, is a microcosm of Fishers seriously poor decisions as a Ram

 

[Merlin]

He is an excellent head coach in many ways, but his recurring issue has been his offensive staff hires. During his time with the Rams he hit on his special teams hire and DC, but he also lost a season to a poor hire with Walton before he got his DC.

In his entire career his only inspired hire at OC was Dinger. Schotty was a mistake that cost him years of offensive development. Cigs cost him this season.

Right now there is one question: did he hit on Boras? If not, and if he gets year 5 without bringing in someone established, he is done. IMO.

 

[Rams43]

1) I don't recall the reference CoachO made in the Ravens game and I don't agree that was the case in that game. Inept? Maybe. Suddenly going conservative when we weren't showing anything on offense anyway? M-okay.
2) I hate prevent defense and three yards and a cloud of dust as much as most fans but it was the right thing to do in those WINS. Trying to ask this offense to open up when a team is going to do everything turn you over is a bad play. Keep in mind that a desperate defense is going to give up tackles for the possibility of an INT or strip or helmet to the ball. Fisher knows that better than some of us fans that would like to see a first down pass when up big.
3) Sure it's possible. Seemingly even obvious to some of us fans. But that is a difficult decision to make in mid season and regardless of the fact that we suddenly started winning, the offense still isn't exactly lighting it up or changing a whole lot of what they do. Even though I may agree with you here and I never thought Foles was any kind of answer, I get why he went with what his OC wanted and didn't just crap can him early on.
4) Match-ups and game momentums are a funny thing. We were not as good as we thought we were at the time AND those teams came out and had a game plan to beat us. Sometimes it is just that simple. I rewatched both of those games (as I have with virtually every game this season) and the WA game was anything but a blow out. It was truly one of those games where a play here or there and we win. The Bears game - another story. But virtually every team has had those games this season - and pretty much every other season. What business did the Iggles have beating the patsies? Or the Falcons thumping the Panthers?
5) Holding the 4th ranked offense to 12 and our inept offense being held to 6 by the 11th ranked defense? Most at the time would have been surprised by a win there and if not for a dropped TD pass, we would have won.
6) A good risk. If Foles plays well, we score big time on the salary cap front. He didn't and his contract still doesn't hurt us much. Much ado about nothing.
7) Sigh. With what our O-line has shown in plays like this? I'm guessing next season we may go for this. In Seattle in the rain with an O-line that has shown a decent pass blocking ability but not a good run blocking ability against the #3 rushing defense in the league? Put up the three.
8) Managing a game when your defense is holding and your offense has not shown much ability to make a lot of plays tends to look more conservative than it is. As it was, we ran 12 times on 1st down and passed 9 times. That may say conservative to you but it says taking the plays that are available to me.
9) It would have been 4th and 10. On the hold, Seattle had a 12 yard gain. Yes we stopped them short of the 1st down but not the following conversion was for 13 yards. Kind of a moot point don't you think? Our defense gave up a 28 yard play to make it 4th and 3 instead of the 4th and 10 that it would have been. In the end - same result but better odds of getting to 4th and 31 than holding them at 4th and 10.
10) You're right. This was a terrific win against a playoff team that had been in the SB the previous two years, on a five game winning streak, at home, in one of the hardest venues to come out with a win, outdoors, in the rain, having lost the previous ten in that same venue..... I could go on.

This seems like a chicken and egg kind of thing to me. While I don't think Fisher will ever really want a "video game" type offense, I do thing that if the offense shows the ability to hit on bigger plays with any kind of consistency, he will loosen the reins.

I also think that while some want to see some kind of return to the GSOT, keep in mind that we scored all of 11 points on Tampa to get into the SB - including a miracle pass to Proehl - and scored all of 23 points to barely hold of Fisher's Titans. And then we scored 17 against the cheaters in the other SB during the GSOT days.

Having a team that can grind out tough wins is a pretty good recipe for winning the big games late in the season. I like this philosophy and as our offense gels, we will likely win a lot of 10 point games. I am none too excited by the idea of bringing in a new HC and think we have our HC of the future,

Go RAMS!!! All hail Jeff Fisher!!!

So RamFan503...

I should put you down for "cautiously optimistic" regarding Fisher's Ram HC future? Lol.

No worries there...

Gotta agree to disagree on this one. Hopefully, your assessment is correct and mine is wrong.

 

[RamFan503]

His decision to take the penalty instead of accepting the 4th down imo, is a microcosm of Fishers seriously poor decisions as a Ram

They had a 13 yard reception on 4th and 3 so how much better off are we on 4th and 10? That essentially becomes a 21 yard penalty he took instead of having them 4th and 10 at our 38 and seeing that they kept their offense on the field, he took a penalty giving them 3rd and 31 at THEIR 42. More often than not, that long of a 3rd down ends up in an incompletion or a throw underneath resulting in a 4th and longer than 10 - potentially 31 and a sure punt. I agreed with the call then and I still do in retrospect.

 

[RamFan503]

So RamFan503...

I should put you down for "cautiously optimistic" regarding Fisher's Ram HC future? Lol.

No worries there...

Gotta agree to disagree on this one. Hopefully, your assessment is correct and mine is wrong.

I get yuh. I'm sure you DO hope you're wrong about him just as much as I hope I'm right. It looks like we are going to get a chance to find out. Of course Stan is not one to make a bunch of statements either way. He could already have the next coach picked and is just waiting until after the season to announce. I hope not but who really knows.

 

[BriansRams]

When it's generally accepted that this team would have likely won 10 games with Case freakin' Keenum under center why would you want to blow up the coaching staff?

Maybe that's kind of his point. As the head coach and sole control of player acquisition and evaluation ... why the hell WASN'T Keenum in much sooner in the year, or heck, even at the start of the year?
He was right there in front of Fisher and Fisher was loving on Foles. His post questions Fishers constant bad decision making on very important things. I understand what he's saying. Just my opinion. Not fighting with ya.

 

[Dxmissile]

1) I don't recall the reference CoachO made in the Ravens game and I don't agree that was the case in that game. Inept? Maybe. Suddenly going conservative when we weren't showing anything on offense anyway? M-okay.
2) I hate prevent defense and three yards and a cloud of dust as much as most fans but it was the right thing to do in those WINS. Trying to ask this offense to open up when a team is going to do everything turn you over is a bad play. Keep in mind that a desperate defense is going to give up tackles for the possibility of an INT or strip or helmet to the ball. Fisher knows that better than some of us fans that would like to see a first down pass when up big.
3) Sure it's possible. Seemingly even obvious to some of us fans. But that is a difficult decision to make in mid season and regardless of the fact that we suddenly started winning, the offense still isn't exactly lighting it up or changing a whole lot of what they do. Even though I may agree with you here and I never thought Foles was any kind of answer, I get why he went with what his OC wanted and didn't just crap can him early on.
4) Match-ups and game momentums are a funny thing. We were not as good as we thought we were at the time AND those teams came out and had a game plan to beat us. Sometimes it is just that simple. I rewatched both of those games (as I have with virtually every game this season) and the WA game was anything but a blow out. It was truly one of those games where a play here or there and we win. The Bears game - another story. But virtually every team has had those games this season - and pretty much every other season. What business did the Iggles have beating the patsies? Or the Falcons thumping the Panthers?
5) Holding the 4th ranked offense to 12 and our inept offense being held to 6 by the 11th ranked defense? Most at the time would have been surprised by a win there and if not for a dropped TD pass, we would have won.
6) A good risk. If Foles plays well, we score big time on the salary cap front. He didn't and his contract still doesn't hurt us much. Much ado about nothing.
7) Sigh. With what our O-line has shown in plays like this? I'm guessing next season we may go for this. In Seattle in the rain with an O-line that has shown a decent pass blocking ability but not a good run blocking ability against the #3 rushing defense in the league? Put up the three.
8) Managing a game when your defense is holding and your offense has not shown much ability to make a lot of plays tends to look more conservative than it is. As it was, we ran 12 times on 1st down and passed 9 times. That may say conservative to you but it says taking the plays that are available to me.
9) It would have been 4th and 10. On the hold, Seattle had a 12 yard gain. Yes we stopped them short of the 1st down but not the following conversion was for 13 yards. Kind of a moot point don't you think? Our defense gave up a 28 yard play to make it 4th and 3 instead of the 4th and 10 that it would have been. In the end - same result but better odds of getting to 4th and 31 than holding them at 4th and 10.
10) You're right. This was a terrific win against a playoff team that had been in the SB the previous two years, on a five game winning streak, at home, in one of the hardest venues to come out with a win, outdoors, in the rain, having lost the previous ten in that same venue..... I could go on.

This seems like a chicken and egg kind of thing to me. While I don't think Fisher will ever really want a "video game" type offense, I do thing that if the offense shows the ability to hit on bigger plays with any kind of consistency, he will loosen the reins.

I also think that while some want to see some kind of return to the GSOT, keep in mind that we scored all of 11 points on Tampa to get into the SB - including a miracle pass to Proehl - and scored all of 23 points to barely hold of Fisher's Titans. And then we scored 17 against the cheaters in the other SB during the GSOT days.

Having a team that can grind out tough wins is a pretty good recipe for winning the big games late in the season. I like this philosophy and as our offense gels, we will likely win a lot of 10 point games. I am none too excited by the idea of bringing in a new HC and think we have our HC of the future,

Go RAMS!!! All hail Jeff Fisher!!!

Awesome post man.

 

[Athos]

They had a 13 yard reception on 4th and 3 so how much better off are we on 4th and 10? That essentially becomes a 21 yard penalty he took instead of having them 4th and 10 at our 38 and seeing that they kept their offense on the field, he took a penalty giving them 3rd and 31 at THEIR 42. More often than not, that long of a 3rd down ends up in an incompletion or a throw underneath resulting in a 4th and longer than 10 - potentially 31 and a sure punt. I agreed with the call then and I still do in retrospect.

Maybe we aren't watching the same team under Fisher, because I've seen this team concede a HELLUVA lot more back-breaking 3rd downs, especially 3rd and longs, than I care to for a supposed top defensive unit.

 

[Dieter the Brock]

I am also in the camp of seeing Fisher as a net plus for our team. I don't get the thinking of those that want to hit the reset button. That is not always the answer. Stability at the top is generally good.

The offensive has gradually improved in the last few games. It's hard to look at that Seattle game and not think we were in control beyond a 6 point win. I was really hoping for US to score the late TD, to pull away. That garbage TD irked me.

With Keenum at the helm all year I believe we would be 8-7, 9-6 or, dare I say 10-5 (Pitt. Minn. Balt.) with some real excitement in the air. sigh...

The problem with Fisher that I do agree with is when he pulls back the offensive reins once we have a lead. FULL THROTTLE AHEAD!! Bury these pukes! is the approach we should be taking more. Trust in the quarterback and offensive personnel will go a long way to solving this as well.

We tend to look at Fishers decisions with such judgment. (Foles, Wells, J. Long, Pead, Quick, sticking with Bradford, etc.)

But, just like the draft, there are things in fate that are beyond our control. We just have to accept reality, deal with things as best we can with a good attitude, learn from mistakes and move forward. Sticking with Fisher is the wise choice. Kroenke knows this.

I dig your post but man, do you not remember that 5 game losing streak coming when we were 4-3?

I'm good with Fisher - as of now, and forgive me for being a fan who likes to change their mind from game to game

But seriously...
After a 3 game (and soon to be 4) game winning streak I have removed the rope I had tied to the old oak in the pasture and now feel like the Rams are closer to the being Champions -- but boy, after that loss to AZ I wanted to clean house

I reserve my ultimate opinion on Fisher until the SF game, cause if we lay an egg against Satan's Friends I'm gonna be f'ing pissed off

if we end up 7-9 I say clean house

8-8 and I say great job Fish!!

But let me reiterate:
I DESERVE A WINNING SEASON
I'M 43 AND HAVE NOT MUCH LONGER TO LIVE

 

[RamFan503]

Maybe that's kind of his point. As the head coach and sole control of player acquisition and evaluation ... why the hell WASN'T Keenum in much sooner in the year, or heck, even at the start of the year?
He was right there in front of Fisher and Fisher was loving on Foles. His post questions Fishers constant bad decision making on very important things. I understand what he's saying. Just my opinion. Not fighting with ya.

Who here watches Keenum play and sees such an obvious upgrade over how Foles has played at times (yes - very few times)? He has slightly better timing, slightly better accuracy, and has enjoyed better protection. I wanted Keenum earlier also but that was more because of Foles' failures - not Keenum's obvious superior talent.

I'm actually going to guess that Cignetti wanted to keep Foles more than Fish. It's just a guess but I have to wonder if Boras was not lobbying for Keenum and part of what lost Cig his job was trying to stick with his boy when it was obvious to everyone else that he needed to sit. When your HC says he is at a loss for explaining the lack of offensive production, I don't get from that he is dictating the offense except for situational offense.

But of course we are all guessing here.

 

[RamFan503]

Maybe we aren't watching the same team under Fisher, because I've seen this team concede a HELLUVA lot more back-breaking 3rd downs, especially 3rd and longs, than I care to for a supposed top defensive unit.

And we've seen them stop a crap load of them too. I still say the odds were with the way they played it given that Seattle was going to go for it on 4th and 10.