shurmur-good choice or not

[Yamahopper]

There was nothing like sitting in the dome and looking down on the field. 3rd and 8 Shurmur's patented 3 yard slant to Amendola in front of the LB's who knew not to bother dropping back, waiting to knock Danny's dick into the dirt as soon as he caught the ball......Good times.

 

[-X-]

It's a pretty big discrepancy. According to PFF, in 2012, Bradford was ranked 14th out of the 33 QBs that qualified in percentage of deep attempts. In 2010, Bradford ranked dead last at 37th.

While the context is understood, it's not like we had a bevy of deep ball WRs in 2012 either. We had Chris Givens...and...

In 2010, we had Clayton and Alexander for probably 8 healthy games.

So I wouldn't say there was a ton in terms of weapons in either year.

I don't go by percentages of attempts in different years as a quantitative measure of comparison.

Let me simplify it.

In 2012, the pass attempts from 0-10 yards was 383.
In 2010, the pass attempts from 0-10 yards was 439.
That's a difference of 56 pass attempts between the two coordinators, and Bradford threw 39 more passes in 2010.

In 2012, the pass attempts from 11-20 yards was 105.
In 2010, the pass attempts from 11-20 yards was 109.
That's a difference of 4 pass attempts between the two coordinators.

So what I'm *trying* to point out is that the dink-n-dunk meme isn't applicable to only Shurmur.

The discrepancy lies in passes over 20 yards, where Bradford threw 20 more passes over 20 yards with Schotty. But. Shurmur drew up plenty of deep routes too, but Bradford was deliberately handcuffed by Spagnuolo in that he had to get rid of the ball in x amount of time. If you look at what Bulger's tendencies were in 2009 (in half the games), you can see that it was Bradford's inexperience that contributed to a lack of a deep ball, coupled with only having two receivers capable of taking the top of a defense for half that time.

My point? Shurmur's not as much of a doof as people think. I mean, look at those two teams (and the Browns) that he had to coordinate. McCoy? Weeden? A rookie Bradford with basically no established receivers? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he gets another OC gig and takes what he's learned in Philly and has a decent offense. The guy's very, very smart and extremely pragmatic.

 

[jrry32]

My point? Shurmur's not as much of a doof as people think. I mean, look at those two teams (and the Browns) that he had to coordinate. McCoy? Weeden? A rookie Bradford with basically no established receivers? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he gets another OC gig and takes what he's learned in Philly and has a decent offense. The guy's very, very smart and extremely pragmatic.

And I don't agree with your point. Shurmur is a poor OC. It was true here. And it was true in Cleveland. I'm not a "results" guy. So if I thought he did well, I wouldn't care if our offense was ranked 25th. You can only do so much with limited talent. But I don't think he did well. He was better than McGenius, that's for sure, but I don't like his system and I didn't like his play-calling.

Plus, I feel like Bradford showed a lot more development and progress with Schottenheimer. Now...some of that is likely due to experience and a far better coaching staff. But Shurmur never impressed me.

 

[Mikey Ram]

And I don't agree with your point. Shurmur is a poor OC. It was true here. And it was true in Cleveland. I'm not a "results" guy. So if I thought he did well, I wouldn't care if our offense was ranked 25th. You can only do so much with limited talent. But I don't think he did well. He was better than McGenius, that's for sure, but I don't like his system and I didn't like his play-calling.

Plus, I feel like Bradford showed a lot more development and progress with Schottenheimer. Now...some of that is likely due to experience and a far better coaching staff. But Shurmur never impressed me.

Whether borne out by stats or not, I think Shurmur made Schotty look like a wild and crazy guy...Shurmur's work absolutely bored me to tears.. I have ZERO desire to ever see him with the Rams again...

 

[Legatron4]

Shurmur? Wonder what Larry Marmie is doing...his units were always good for putting points on the scoreboard.

Who is this Larry Marmie I keep reading about?

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Shurmur got a lot of credit for the Eagles offense under Any Reid but the truth is Reid has the same offense everywhere he goes and runs it better than Shurmur did. Some thought Shurmur was some sort of QB guru because the Eagles took the talentless Kevin Kolb and made him look like a very good QB that they got a good draft pick for.

The Reid/Shurmur west coast offense is the most conservative that I have seen and it is made so that even mediocre QBs can succeed in it. Spagnoulo was with the Eagles for a few years and that was the Shurmur connection and where he got the belief in Reids offense. So he figures bringing in Shurmur to run an offense that does not rely on a star QB or a bevy of weapons was a great way to try to maximize the talentless roster and teach a rookie QB the conservative approach he preferred on D.

I think it was a miserable mistake that tied Bradfords hands for years because he was too conservative.

 

[-X-]

And I don't agree with your point. Shurmur is a poor OC. It was true here. And it was true in Cleveland. I'm not a "results" guy. So if I thought he did well, I wouldn't care if our offense was ranked 25th. You can only do so much with limited talent. But I don't think he did well. He was better than McGenius, that's for sure, but I don't like his system and I didn't like his play-calling.

Plus, I feel like Bradford showed a lot more development and progress with Schottenheimer. Now...some of that is likely due to experience and a far better coaching staff. But Shurmur never impressed me.

That's cool. I don't expect you to agree with me on this one (or ever). lol.

There's an interesting dynamic happening in this conversation though, because I like McDaniels WAY more than I like Shurmur just based on philosophy. I think if McDaniels had some experienced guys on this team when he came in, and the benefit of an off-season to implement his offense, that we'd have done much better in 2011. The thing I liked about his approach is that he changed up his game plan week to week based on the strengths and weaknesses of the opposing defenses. The fact that he tried to do that anyway, despite the things that plagued the team that year, made him a bit too dogmatic for me. But I'd take McDaniels over Shurmur every single time.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

@-X- I would like to add that the stat comparison that you posted is exactly why I was not excited about Schottenheimer becoming the Rams OC when Fisher was hired. I felt that the offense was just going to be more of the same.

 

[-X-]

@-X- I would like to add that the stat comparison that you posted is exactly why I was not excited about Schottenheimer becoming the Rams OC when Fisher was hired. I felt that the offense was just going to be more of the same.

I didn't really expect a huge departure from the norm either when he was hired. But I did expect there to be an increase in the run game's efficiency and the amount of play-action we ran.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

I didn't really expect a huge departure from the norm either when he was hired. But I did expect there to be an increase in the run game's efficiency and the amount of play-action we ran.

With the ways offenses score these days I really was hoping for someone more innovative or known for being able to maximize the talent he is given and adjust his offense accordingly. Shcottenheimer seemed to do that a bit this last year but I don't think it was enough of a difference to make the Rams offense viable against tougher teams.

 

[jrry32]

That's cool. I don't expect you to agree with me on this one (or ever). lol.

There's an interesting dynamic happening in this conversation though, because I like McDaniels WAY more than I like Shurmur just based on philosophy. I think if McDaniels had some experienced guys on this team when he came in, and the benefit of an off-season to implement his offense, that we'd have done much better in 2011. The thing I liked about his approach is that he changed up his game plan week to week based on the strengths and weaknesses of the opposing defenses. The fact that he tried to do that anyway, despite the things that plagued the team that year, made him a bit too dogmatic for me. But I'd take McDaniels over Shurmur every single time.

I hated McDaniels. I was fine with his philosophy but his implementation was terrible. The guy never seemed to quite understand that we weren't the Patriots. He didn't adapt to his personnel. And that made me very angry.

Shurmur, for all his faults, tried to adapt some to the personnel. Same with Schotty. McDaniels just didn't seem to care.

 

[-X-]

I hated McDaniels. I was fine with his philosophy but his implementation was terrible. The guy never seemed to quite understand that we weren't the Patriots. He didn't adapt to his personnel. And that made me very angry.

Shurmur, for all his faults, tried to adapt some to the personnel. Same with Schotty. McDaniels just didn't seem to care.

Agreed. That's McD's fatal flaw. But in his defense, he'd never had to work with such inexperience and injury in his career either. If he had just eased the players into the gameplan early on, they probably would have done better. By the Green Bay game, it seemed things started clicking. And then ... <snap>. There goes Bradford's ankle.

 

[CGI_Ram]

Agreed. That's McD's fatal flaw. But in his defense, he'd never had to work with such inexperience and injury in his career either. If he had just eased the players into the gameplan early on, they probably would have done better. By the Green Bay game, it seemed things started clicking. And then ... <snap>. There goes Bradford's ankle.

Myself; I think McDaniels is a damn good OC.

He definitely fell victim to the sum of the parts here in St. Louis.