Rams at Cardinals: Gray's Grades and Analysis 101 ESPN/101sports.com

[STL-Rams]

Shane Gray provides special Rams commentaries on 101sports.com. Follow him on Twitter @ShaneGmoSTLRams.

Quarterback:

Sunday’s showing marked the second consecutive day of struggle for St. Louis Rams quarterback Kellen Clemens, who finished the day 16 of 27 (59 percent) with two interceptions, no touchdowns and a quarterback rating of just 48.5.

While Clemens connected on a relatively high percentage of passes in comparison to his career completion mark (52 percent), both of his turnovers led to Arizona Cardinals touchdowns – including a third-quarter pick-six that crushed any hopes of a St. Louis comeback.

Without a strong running game, Clemens did not benefit from the opportunity to set up the play-action pass effectively. In addition, Clemens was sacked on four occasions and harassed by consistent pressure throughout the contest.

All in all, it was a disappointing day for Clemens. However, as offensive lineman Rodger Saffold accurately pointed out, there was plenty of blame to go around.

“I think that Kellen (Clemens) is an excellent quarterback,” Saffold said. “I think that he can handle the job just fine. The way that we play as an offense is as an offense. It’s all the positions. It’s not just on Kellen, and we know this. We have to do better with protection. We have to do better with routes. We have to do better throwing the ball, (and) running the ball. All those things have to happen in order to make us a really productive offense.”

Grade: D-

Running Back:

A recently robust Rams running game all but fizzled out in the desert of Arizona Sunday, as St. Louis running backs were only able to attain a meager 34 yards on the ground.

Starter Zac Stacy was only able to contribute 25 rushing yards on 14 carries. Backup Benny Cunningham chipped in nine yards on two attempts.

For the most part, it was tough sledding for Rams backs, who found little room to run against the NFL’s second-best rushing defense.

St. Louis head coach Jeff Fisher admitted that he was disappointed in what the offense was able to do on the ground.

(Hope you will enjoy grades and analysis of ALL positional units as well as coaching staff):

http://www.101sports.com/2013/12/11/rams-cardinals-grays-grades-analysis/

 

[Alan]

I always look forward to your thoughts on our last game Shane and I wasn't disappointed.

This quote pretty much sims up this game and this season.

Normally, a sack-free game would garner no better than a C-range grade, but when the opposing quarterback is able to complete 27 of 32 passes due largely to soft coverage that continually allowed quick-strike connections, it’s tough to pin too much blame on a pass rush that had little time to make things happen.

I would quibble a litlle with the grade you gave the RBs due to the fact the play calling required good O-line blocking and it wasn't there. The lack of imagination by the OC and the O-line performance against the Cards excellent D-line had a huge affect on what they could gain on the ground. Tough to even grade their performance IMO. Under the circumstances I'd have given them a C just because.

 

[STL-Rams]

I always look forward to your thoughts on our last game Shane and I wasn't disappointed.

This quote pretty much sims up this game and this season.


I would quibble a litlle with the grade you gave the RBs due to the fact the play calling required good O-line blocking and it wasn't there. The lack of imagination by the OC and the O-line performance against the Cards excellent D-line had a huge affect on what they could gain on the ground. Tough to even grade their performance IMO. Under the circumstances I'd have given them a C just because.

I can understand that certainly, but on the other hand, the overall totals were absolutely dismal so it was hard to be too generous even with your terrific points considered.

 

[Stranger]

Normally, a sack-free game would garner no better than a C-range grade, but when the opposing quarterback is able to complete 27 of 32 passes due largely to soft coverage that continually allowed quick-strike connections, it’s tough to pin too much blame on a pass rush that had little time to make things happen.

Is this Walton's defense, or Fisher's defense? Who is directing the ridiculously soft coverage? Shane, do you know?

 

[duckhunter]

Thanks Shane. Great read.

 

[iBruce]

Didn't realize Shane was on here. Very good twitter follow, for those who aren't already.

 

[nighttrain]

Good read Shane, your grading was right on and I liked the kudos, however small, to Quick and Pead, who I think we should start seeing more of
train

 

[Rambitious1]

Good read Shane.
I always enjoy your work.
Shane do you know who is calling the D?
I heard Walton was calling it and calling soft coverage defenses.

My concern is coaching, especially on Defense.