Rams' Jeff Fisher stands behind play call

[Boffo97]

If the play had resulted in a touchdown, I don't think one person would be complaining about the call.

 

[Angry Ram]

With every play call the players have the responsibility to make the play or abort it. Shaun overall played well, but made a terrible, terrible decision. Sure ideally, you would run it in. But the irony here is that everyone screaming at Schotty and Jeff Fisher is that they should've run it, that the Chargers would've known that as well? And running from the 6 yard line or so 3 straight times is no gimme either, especially since everyone would've known the playcall anyway.

It was a gamble. That's all it was, but with the worst possible outcome.

 

[Boffo97]

As well, if they had run the ball and it didn't work, I could sadly see Schotty get blasted for that too.

Either for "stop being so cowardly and grow some balls" or "don't just run the play everyone knows you're going to run!"

People of course have a right to have whatever opinion they want on Schottenheimer, but I do wonder if some have crossed the line into bashing him no matter what.

 

[CoachO]

Eh I dunno if 3rd down becomes a must throw situation if they don't score on 2nd down. Plenty of drives down there are run, run, run.

I get that your preference would be to run the ball. I guess you keep missing where I have continually said i understand that. But its not the only way to do it. That is all I am saying. At some point, it has to be about the players executing the play that is called. It isn't always about poor coaching decisions. This play call SHOULD have worked. If you watch it again, it WOULD have worked had the QB executed the play.

 

[Athos]

It isn't always about poor coaching decisions. This play call SHOULD have worked. If you watch it again, it WOULD have worked had the QB executed the play.

It was poorly developed, because it was an empty set. Haven't you even admitted going empty wasn't smart? More than anything, that's what pissed me off about that play, regardless of not running it as they should. They tipped their hand and Hill played right into the D.

 

[LesBaker]

I get that your preference would be to run the ball. I guess you keep missing where I have continually said i understand that. But its not the only way to do it. That is all I am saying. At some point, it has to be about the players executing the play that is called. It isn't always about poor coaching decisions. This play call SHOULD have worked. If you watch it again, it WOULD have worked had the QB executed the play.

I understand what you are saying Coach, but I think you're missing what I'm saying. Strategically it may have been wiser to run, then try a pass if needed. But who knows and at this point there isn't a way to say who is right or who is wrong.

As far as execution I'll say this...........every play ever drawn up from pee-wee to the pros is designed to work so yeah execution matters. But so does strategy and playing the odds and it's fair to have the opinion that sometimes BS may be tone deaf.

Anyway I've run out of things to say about the play.

 

[CoachO]

I understand what you are saying Coach, but I think you're missing what I'm saying. Strategically it may have been wiser to run, then try a pass if needed. But who knows and at this point there isn't a way to say who is right or who is wrong.

As far as execution I'll say this...........every play ever drawn up from pee-wee to the pros is designed to work so yeah execution matters. But so does strategy and playing the odds and it's fair to have the opinion that sometimes BS may be tone deaf.

Anyway I've run out of things to say about the play.

I agree, and we can just agree to disagree on the strategy aspect. I agree with the reasons why you prefer to run the ball here. And i am not insinuating YOU are doing this, but sometimes i think people just don't like Schottenhiemer, so when something doesn't work, he is an easy target. In this case, I just think that may be the case.

IMO, this play WOULD have worked, and was set up to work had Hill looked at Cunningham, rather than locking on Britt.

 

[blue4]

If the play had resulted in a touchdown, I don't think one person would be complaining about the call.

It's possible to dislike a play choice even if it ends up working. I don't like throwing low percentage deep balls on 3rd and 1 but sometimes they work and I cheer. Doesn't stop me from realizing we bucked the odds. Put us back in that same scenario with Hill or Davis every game and I'd call for 3 runs every time. Regardless of whether the pass worked before or not.

 

[iced]

I get that your preference would be to run the ball. I guess you keep missing where I have continually said i understand that. But its not the only way to do it. That is all I am saying. At some point, it has to be about the players executing the play that is called. It isn't always about poor coaching decisions. This play call SHOULD have worked. If you watch it again, it WOULD have worked had the QB executed the play.

But the coaches also have to put players in position to succeed - and that play call didn't have a high probability for success imo. Going empty set killed it, regardless if hill stares down britt or not. I do agree cunningham was the right read on the play as everyone else was practically doubled.We kept 7 in to block,they rushed 5

 

[thirteen28]

But the coaches also have to put players in position to succeed - and that play call didn't have a high probability for success imo. Going empty set killed it, regardless if hill stares down britt or not. I do agree cunningham was the right read on the play as everyone else was practically doubled.We kept 7 in to block,they rushed 5

... and those guys knew they could go straight into coverage before the ball was set thanks to the empty set backfield.

Good lord, could we at least do play action at this point in the game?

 

[iced]

... and those guys knew they could go straight into coverage before the ball was set thanks to the empty set backfield.

Good lord, could we at least do play action at this point in the game?

Lol exactly how i felt

The Formation pisses me off more than not running the ball.

Wanna be aggressive? Fine - go for the jugular. But do something that might have a chance at working. That's a situation where they should be thinking we'd run the ball - maybe some play action from I-formation, getting Tavon or a TE out in the flat that shotty loves to do so often from our side of the field...

I don't get it - going empty set with 1 timeout, 1:27 left, on San Diego's 4? Defense knew we wouldn't run it after Benny goes in motion.

To be honest with the way Tre was running I don't see why we didn't hand it off to him anyway - or Tavon.

 

[ReddingRam]

Once again, I just don't get why this is about the play call, and not about the execution BY THE PLAYERS, specifically a veteran QB who should be trusted NOT to make the fatal mistake he indeed made. I know i am in the minority here, but I had little issue with the play call.

Win the game. Taking that game to OT when you are inside the 5 yard line is not an option.

The bigger question, is why go "empty" and take the threat of play-action away? That is fair game IMO.

I agree and to further the formation thing ... it looked to me like they did a "tight" formation as well? If you are going to throw a quick pass over the middle in that short area, wouldn't you try and spread the defense out a little more? Seemed we helped bring the defense right into the coverage area on that one..?

 

[BD-TomCat]

I agree with coach O on this one. I can pretty much garuntee that wasnt the only play called. I'm almost positive that Hill had the option to kill the pass play and run the ball if he didnt like what he seen on the field. He was doing it all day. It was totally on Hill not to turn the ball over and he did exactly what a vet in his position is not suppose to do. Fisher and Shotty were trying to win the game. You play for overtime at home not on the road

 

[blackbart]

TA had scored on the jet sweep already in this game. Why not run it on second down or at least a play action pass off that? Of course I am presuming something like that is in the playbook.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Removing myself from the debate of whether it was a good call or not for a moment.

I'm not sure why Jeff Fisher says some things at all.

I don't know if he volunteered those statements or was asked.

Either way, there has to be ways of stepping around it and not making yourself look rather foolish by saying you thought it was the right call (if Jeff Fisher truly believes that, I'm not so sure about him).

Just say something like "we tried something and it didn't work". Or, better yet, say "we're moving on".

He seems to always say things in defense of his coaches or players that aren't necessary and makes him look kind of silly.

Back to the play:
Gave me flash backs to the last plays of the Seattle games last year in STL. Empty backfields telegraph what you're going to do.
It didn't work last year and it was a didaster yesterday.

 

[RamzFanz]

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/

Fisher:
Taking a shot: Rams coach Jeff Fisher said he had no regrets going with a pass on second-and-goal at San Diego’s 4 with the game on the line. The play resulted in San Diego defensive back Marcus Gilchrist's game-clinching interception on a bad read and throw by quarterback Shaun Hill. But Fisher said he wanted to be aggressive in that spot.

“The plan was not to just sit there and go incomplete, incomplete and settle for a field goal,” Fisher said. “We were trying to win the game. This was not Shaun’s fault, he got us there. He did a hell of a job on that drive getting us down there. You just hope the ball is thrown away. It’s not and then they make a play.”

Hill made a mistake but this was really bad play calling. The game and the playoffs are on the line. Run the damn ball twice. A) You probably win. B) If not, you get another shot.

 

[DR RAM]

You're implying that running the ball isn't going for the win though and that isn't the case. Especially not for a team that's supposed to be able to run it and one that actually was running it well enough on the day.

Just because you call a pass play doesn't mean you're going for the win. In this case, telegraphing a pass play was the furthest thing from going for the win, it was putting the win at risk and it ultimately failed. To me, going for the win is not doing something stupid or outsmarting yourself and giving yourself the best chance to score a TD or tie the game and live to fight on.

Balls are fine and sometimes the best way to go. Like on the fake punt. But other times you have to use your brain and not your balls.

Wasn't really what I was implying, but it's tough to run, or pass in there. Hill had a clean pocket, should have had options to make a play. BC was open.

 

[-X-]

Wasn't really what I was implying, but it's tough to run, or pass in there. Hill had a clean pocket, should have had options to make a play.

All true. I see a lot of people complaining that they telegraphed the pass on that play, but who here actually thinks the Chargers were committed to defending the run in that situation with the Rams lined up in that formation? They still rushed the same amount of guys, minus one. When Benny went in motion, it took one more guy out of the box and gave Hill one more passing option. The fact that Hill didn't physically see the defender who ultimately picked the pass off, doesn't negate the idea that it was a well designed play. It's only because it didn't succeed that people now have a problem with it. I'd say 9 times out of 10, Hill makes that connection and the Rams are up by 4 and likely win the game, as opposed to tying it and hoping they win it in the next quarter.

I-M-O.

 

[DR RAM]

All true. I see a lot of people complaining that they telegraphed the pass on that play, but who here actually thinks the Chargers were committed to defending the run in that situation with the Rams lined up in that formation? They still rushed the same amount of guys, minus one. When Benny went in motion, it took one more guy out of the box and gave Hill one more passing option. The fact that Hill didn't physically see the defender who ultimately picked the pass off, doesn't negate the idea that it was a well designed play. It's only because it didn't succeed that people now have a problem with it. I'd say 9 times out of 10, Hill makes that connection and the Rams are up by 4 and likely win the game, as opposed to tying it and hoping they win it in the next quarter.

I-M-O.

I'm sure he thought Britt would have got lost in the trash, and Britt played one hell of a game. Besides getting INT'd, the ball appears as if it would have been defended too. I have more of an issue with him throwing when he was covered, but, for people to think it was the only play available, is kind of silly, IMO. The NFL continually took mo away from us, including a couple times towards the end of the game. I take more of an issue with that. There's no guarantee we would have been able to get that ball in whether, running, passing, or the officials.

It came down to that one play, and we didn't execute it....period.