Should we be concerned?

[Alan]

mr.stlouis with a Q:
Quick question; Is Carrington really a better pass rusher than Brockers? Brock had 5.5 sacks last year, I don't know.

Carrington is a huge question mark in my mind. But if what the Rams brain trust can be believed he'll be on the field just as much as Brockers.

CoachO speaking for Fisher:
Not as simple as saying we were playing the guys who will be "starters" in that they will be part of the rotation. The ONLY 'starters" on the D-line who were on the field for anything more than a token series or two, were Eugene Sims and Alex Carrington. Chris Long played a series. Wm. Hayes didn't play a down. Quinn played only a handful of snaps, all on 3rd down pass rushing situations. Brockers and Langford didn't play a down either. So by my count, that's FIVE of the SEVEN "rotational" guys who didn't play up front.

And as far as having only one starter at LB out, its more a case of who took his place that lead to most of the issues. By having Dunbar slide to the MLB position, and now putting Armstrong on the field to stop the running game..... well you saw how that turned out.

For all those people who still want to beat the drum for Ray Ray taking over for Dunbar at the WLB, I hope you took notice. He couldn't get off blocks, and over ran plays consistently. I know its ONE preseason game. But this is the same thing that shows up in every practice.

I disagree with your count because you arbitrarily delete players based on what you consider to be insufficient playing time. Quinn and Long didn't play that many snaps but the run D was bad when they were playing. Each member of the front 7 rotation, with the exception of Quinn, will have equal playing time according to Fisher. So yes, we were playing "starters" when our run D was sucking. Maybe not the ones you like the best but starters (members of the rotation) none the less. Of course they were also playing back ups during that period too.

The same thing can be said about the LB corps. Missing only one starter is missing only one starter no matter how you try to spin it.

More importantly, I think you're missing the point. What's the title of this thread?
"Should we be concerned?"
We're not talking about players that are far down in the pecking order, we're talking about starters, even if they're only part of a rotation, and players likely to start right away or become starters due to injury. To say that they shouldn't be part of the conversation when debating whether we should be concerned is to deny the possibility of injuries. When you add in the actual rotational starters the "concern" should ratchet up considerably. Chris Long sounded concerned to me. Knowing that Ray Ray is sucking so far doesn't concern you? It does me.

Let's bring this back to the first thing I said, "I'm not going to weigh in on whether we should be worried or not about our run D". I said that because I think it's too early to have a meaningful conversation about this. Much of my reasoning for saying that is because many of the things you said are true.

 

[CoachO]

fair enough,, but i still stand my comment about the guys on the field will NOT be part of the rotation other than Sims.

 

[crazyhorns]

You're concerned about a run D that was missing its most vital pieces in JL and Brockers as well as Langford and our 2 starting CBs. Not to mention Dunbar played out of position and Quinn only played a handful of snaps.

And flags? How many of those were from starters? The majority of the guys making those mistakes won't even be making the team or get significant PT if they do

I know it's early in the preseason and many of the starters were not active for the game. I believe I already stated that?

 

[crazyhorns]

Should we be concerned about a run D which gave up 3 yards per attempt after the bye last season on the basis of a preseason game where half our starters didn't play and the other half played about 5 snaps? Sure why the hell not.

However, last years team started out slow out of the gate and some of the concerns early on last year has shown it's head again.

I like the way you said after the bye when clearly my concern is about the start of the season and not after the bye week?

 

[Rams and Gators]

However, last years team started out slow out of the gate and some of the concerns early on last year has shown it's head again.

I like the way you said after the bye when clearly my concern is about the start of the season and not after the bye week?

Well we do have the worst coaching staff in the NFL, no doubt they've learnt nothing from last year and intend to repeat it in the exact same fashion.

They are capable of an elite level of play, I'll trust Fisher on how to get that out of them.

 

[Alan]

CoachO forgetting an important cog:
fair enough,, but i still stand my comment about the guys on the field will NOT be part of the rotation other than Sims.

I'm assuming you inadvertently forgot to add Donald but I take your point.

 

[RamBall]

I'm not concerned, IMO this is just part of the Fisher way of laying the foundation. The Rams did no game planning, Fisher uses the preseason a lil different that some coaches. It is all about evaluation, players will win or lose with ability and scheme has very little to do with winning or losing. As Fisher and staff begin gameplanning the players will be put in position to win with ability and scheme. The players will see first hand that the scheme works and will believe in it.

And as far as the missed tackles, this was the first live action these players have seen this season plus the fact that the Rams were playing a lot depth guys. If the starters are still unable to stop the run we better all start praying that the O will light it up once SB8 gets in there. A big lead means the other team must abandon the run and play right into the strength of the Rams D.

 

[Yamahopper]

Not as simple as saying we were playing the guys who will be "starters" in that they will be part of the rotation. The ONLY 'starters" on the D-line who were on the field for anything more than a token series or two, were Eugene Sims and Alex Carrington. Chris Long played a series. Wm. Hayes didn't play a down. Quinn played only a handful of snaps, all on 3rd down pass rushing situations. Brockers and Langford didn't play a down either. So by my count, that's FIVE of the SEVEN "rotational" guys who didn't play up front.

And as far as having only one starter at LB out, its more a case of who took his place that lead to most of the issues. By having Dunbar slide to the MLB position, and now putting Armstrong on the field to stop the running game..... well you saw how that turned out.

For all those people who still want to beat the drum for Ray Ray taking over for Dunbar at the WLB, I hope you took notice. He couldn't get off blocks, and over ran plays consistently. I know its ONE preseason game. But this is the same thing that shows up in every practice.

For all those people who still want to beat the drum for Ray Ray taking over for Dunbar at the WLB, I hope you took notice. He couldn't get off blocks, and over ran plays consistently. I know its ONE preseason game. But this is the same thing that shows up in every practice.

I agree with you about Ray Ray, But the same could be said for Dunbar trying to replace JL at MLB. He can't.

 

[CoachO]

I agree with you about Ray Ray, But the same could be said for Dunbar trying to replace JL at MLB. He can't.

My initial reaction is to agree with you. But I will also go back to my point about not having Brockers or Langford in front of him. Those guys do a great job of eating up space and blockers, allowing Laurinaitis to get to the ball.

But if history tells us anything, Laurinaitis will be there, barring some serious injury.

 

[Yamahopper]

My initial reaction is to agree with you. But I will also go back to my point about not having Brockers or Langford in front of him. Those guys do a great job of eating up space and blockers, allowing Laurinaitis to get to the ball.

But if history tells us anything, Laurinaitis will be there, barring some serious injury.

I agree. Keeping the LB's clean is essential.

 

[JackDRams]

All this talk of our defensive starters not playing, but how many offensive starters did NO not play? I know Brees sat, but other then him? Cuz if they had all of their starters on the field, then we can use this as an excuse. You can't use our starters sitting as an excuse if they had starters watching too. I honestly don't know if they had any sitting or not, just wondering.

 

[CoachO]

All this talk of our defensive starters not playing, but how many offensive starters did NO not play? I know Brees sat, but other then him?

Well, Colston played, Graham played, Ingram obviously played. I'm guessing most of their o-line played some, I know Armstead did.

 

[CodeMonkey]

I think it's fair to say that the poor tackling and the stupid penalties is something to be concerned about. Whatever the reason ... young players, backups, lack of preparation, whatever, it's an issue... an ongoing theme it seems. Let's hope it gets cleaned up stat. It was only preseason game one.

With regard to Ray Ray specifically, You at least had to love that play where he went under the blocker to get the ball carrier behind him. That play made me spill a little bit of beer. He has a lot to learn but I love his heart.

 

[CodeMonkey]

Is the fact that we got no sacks a reason for concern? I know I certainly expected to see a sack party... Should have had at least one, right? I did see some good pressure just but not the sheer destruction of my imaginations.

Reason for concern?

 

[NJRamsFan]

As others mentioned, i'm not putting much stock into the first preseason game. Our run D did look bad but our most vital pieces to stop the run were inactive. We be much more stout come week one.

 

[Stranger]

@PhxRam @Prime Time

can we pleas have a rod purgatory subforum... just so we can put OP's like this one in it?

 

[CoachO]

Is the fact that we got no sacks a reason for concern? I know I certainly expected to see a sack party... Should have had at least one, right? I did see some good pressure just but not the sheer destruction of my imaginations.

Reason for concern?

I think people are going to be disappointed if you are expecting them to rack up tons of sacks this year. They are not going to surprise many teams with the pressure that they will generate. And because of that, teams are going to game plan to get the ball out quick. That will also help our the young secondary, assuming they will be put in a more aggressive mindset and position to think turnovers.

The whole key to me, is for this team to get an early lead, and turn the defense loose. They were able to exploit good teams last year by doing that very thing. Indy, New Orleans, Chicago. I know with the schedule being what it is, and just by the nature of the NFC West opponents, easier said then done,

 

[RamzFanz]

No, we should not be concerned yet.

 

[yrba1]

We should be concerned if Brockers goes down. He has a history of being dinged up, hopefully he at least stays healthy when we need him the most.

 

[CodeMonkey]

I understand that and I guess my bar is pretty high now, particularly on D. I was expecting that even our backups would have been more dominant. True... It was only preseason game one but I have to say the defense disappointed me. On the other hand the offense overall impressed me more than expected.