Steven Jackson happy Jeff Fisher doesn't need training

[-X-]

NFL.com
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8 ... d-training

(WARNING: THIS IS COMPLETELY REDUNDANT. QUOTES REHASHED TO MAKE ANOTHER EXACT SAME STORY) :sly:

The St. Louis Rams went the first-time-head-coach route when they hired Scott Linehan in 2005. An 8-8 season and one of the worst three-year stretches in NFL history followed.

Then they did it again when they hired Steve Spagnuolo. He went 1-15, 7-9 and then 2-14. The Rams had a lot of problems that had nothing to do with the coach -- especially how the roster was constructed -- but franchise pillar Steven Jackson sounds happy another first-time head coach hasn't entered the picture. Instead, the Rams brought in Jeff Fisher and his 16 years of head coaching experience.

"It's quite a difference. Nothing against what I've had before coach Fisher, but you can definitely tell a difference in leadership, a difference in confidence. It's not so much of on-the-job training," Jackson told FoxSports Midwest. "I'm just impressed by what he's assembled with assistant coaches around him. We have very credible coaches that are teaching me and some of my teammates. It's just impressive, what they've been able to accomplish in some of their own careers."

Jackson knows he may not have many years left in St. Louis. He remains a workhorse, but the big plays are few and far between. He's approaching the age of 30 and doesn't want to wait through another endless rebuilding project where nothing lasting gets built.

"It's very refreshing to have a coach that has that kind of resume and brings that kind of credibility," Jackson said. "You can just feel it. It's quite a difference. I haven't felt this way since the 2004, 2005 years, where now it's more so 'when' is it going to turn around, not 'if' it's going to turn around."

Jackson played under Mike Martz in 2004 to 2005. The organization has not even had a winning record once since Jackson entered the league.

People say that winning is hard in the NFL, but losing that much is also hard with so many rules promoting competitive balance. Jackson is confident Fisher will help end this dreadful stretch in Rams history. If it doesn't happen fast, Jackson won't ever know what it's like to play for a winning team.

 

[Thordaddy]

Jackson conveyed to me through body language, perfunctory mannerism whatever you please, that he was underwhelmed by the game plan in the "play in " game in Seattle year before last.

Sort of takes a swipe at both Linny and Spags there ,then again if he only gets 60% of the carries this year he ain't gonna be happy either.

 

[Angry Ram]

Jackson conveyed to me through body language, perfunctory mannerism whatever you please, that he was underwhelmed by the game plan in the "play in " game in Seattle year before last.

Sort of takes a swipe at both Linny and Spags there ,then again if he only gets 60% of the carries this year he ain't gonna be happy either.

Yeah I kinda agree there. That game where Shurmer refused 2 feed SJack the ball (at least that's what it felt like). He only had 11 attempts vs. 36 pass attempts. In a 6-16 final score game. WOW.

It was more evident in Seattle on Monday nite last year, when he screamed @ the coaches 2 give him the damn ball from the 1 or 2 yard line. They had like 5 plays before and not one of them went to SJack. TBH I was screamin too.

 

[JdashSTL]

Jackson conveyed to me through body language, perfunctory mannerism whatever you please, that he was underwhelmed by the game plan in the "play in " game in Seattle year before last.

Sort of takes a swipe at both Linny and Spags there ,then again if he only gets 60% of the carries this year he ain't gonna be happy either.

Yeah I kinda agree there. That game where Shurmer refused 2 feed SJack the ball (at least that's what it felt like). He only had 11 attempts vs. 36 pass attempts. In a 6-16 final score game. WOW.

It was more evident in Seattle on Monday nite last year, when he screamed @ the coaches 2 give him the damn ball from the 1 or 2 yard line. They had like 5 plays before and not one of them went to SJack. TBH I was screamin too.

I still have no issue with our gameplan going into that week 17 loss. I do recall SJ having some good runs in that game and we didnt continue to give him carries after that, but it was clear that that game was put on Bradfords shoulders, and it didnt work out.

 

[Young Ram]

I read an article where Pete carroll had said that they would look at game tape and when the defense was in a particular set, the rams would switch a run play to a pass play. This made them take Jackson out of the game and put the game in Bradford's hand.

If this is true I can't believe they didn't catch on to this.

 

[Anonymous]

I read an article where Pete carroll had said that they would look at game tape and when the defense was in a particular set, the rams would switch a run play to a pass play. This made them take Jackson out of the game and put the game in Bradford's hand.

If this is true I can't believe they didn't catch on to this.

Bradford was the one making the calls switching plays from run to pass and pass to run. When it comes to that, he was a rookie qb up against a crafty old NFL defensive coordinator. The only way around that one was either to teach Bradford in a few seconds how to spot disguised and/or bait-n-switch defenses OR to simply cancel him doing audibles during the game.

Meanwhile, if the receivers--particularly Robinson, Alexander and Gibson--had held on to the passes that hit them in the hands, it's a different game.

Combined, they had 18 targets for 8 catches in that game. Alexander, Gibson, and Robinson combined were 5-0 on any pass longer than 11 yards.



---

 

[Thordaddy]

I read an article where Pete carroll had said that they would look at game tape and when the defense was in a particular set, the rams would switch a run play to a pass play. This made them take Jackson out of the game and put the game in Bradford's hand.

If this is true I can't believe they didn't catch on to this.

Well some would say Carroll badly outcoached the Rams in that game because they dictated what the Rams did and kept them from using their one star.
I would be among them .
It was my first inkling that Spags might not have been ready for prime time.
I'd say that was one of the things SJ was referring to.
So yeah we are better off, I doubt there is much to debate about that .and further I think we probably all agree that this year under Fisher aught to be better than another year of Spags so......bonus.

 

[Angry Ram]

I read an article where Pete carroll had said that they would look at game tape and when the defense was in a particular set, the rams would switch a run play to a pass play. This made them take Jackson out of the game and put the game in Bradford's hand.

If this is true I can't believe they didn't catch on to this.

But...it's Steven freakin Jackson. He had 45 yards on 11 attempts...just 11!

He needed 2 be utilized more. You don't abandon the run when there's no need to.

I guess there's no use arguing about it now. What's done is done.

 

[-X-]

I read an article where Pete carroll had said that they would look at game tape and when the defense was in a particular set, the rams would switch a run play to a pass play. This made them take Jackson out of the game and put the game in Bradford's hand.

If this is true I can't believe they didn't catch on to this.

But...it's Steven freakin Jackson. He had 45 yards on 11 attempts...just 11!

He needed 2 be utilized more. You don't abandon the run when there's no need to.

I guess there's no use arguing about it now. What's done is done.

Yep. Rear-view.

I don't understand about the RB coach though. Jackson has more experience than his coach and is actually prepping his coach for the rigors of a full NFL season? Uh, how's that song go? "One of these things is not like the other ... one of these does not belong..."

 

[Young Ram]

I read an article where Pete carroll had said that they would look at game tape and when the defense was in a particular set, the rams would switch a run play to a pass play. This made them take Jackson out of the game and put the game in Bradford's hand.

If this is true I can't believe they didn't catch on to this.

But...it's Steven freakin Jackson. He had 45 yards on 11 attempts...just 11!

He needed 2 be utilized more. You don't abandon the run when there's no need to.

I guess there's no use arguing about it now. What's done is done.

I know right? You have a chance for a playoff berth and you rely on your rookie QB instead of your beast RB SJ39 to win you the game. Granted, if the receivers didn't drop some balls things could have gone differently.

Oh well, but you guys are right. Let's move forward and hope we become winners sooner than later.

 

[Anonymous]

I read an article where Pete carroll had said that they would look at game tape and when the defense was in a particular set, the rams would switch a run play to a pass play. This made them take Jackson out of the game and put the game in Bradford's hand.

If this is true I can't believe they didn't catch on to this.

But...it's Steven freakin Jackson. He had 45 yards on 11 attempts...just 11!

He needed 2 be utilized more. You don't abandon the run when there's no need to.

I guess there's no use arguing about it now. What's done is done.

They conceded the run. Their entire thing was to get Bradford to pass. Fact is, that was Jackson's worst season because he was banged up all year. He was not the same feared runner that year. In any event, as was said at the time, after the game, the reason they ran less than normal in that game is because they "baited" Bradford into audibles with disguised defenses. It was an old fox D coordinator messing with a rookie qb.They could have told him not to audible I guess. But many of what ended up being passes were called as runs, but got audibled into passes.

And even given that, if the receivers had an even decent game, it's a different story.

 

[Anonymous]

I read an article where Pete carroll had said that they would look at game tape and when the defense was in a particular set, the rams would switch a run play to a pass play. This made them take Jackson out of the game and put the game in Bradford's hand.

If this is true I can't believe they didn't catch on to this.

But...it's Steven freakin Jackson. He had 45 yards on 11 attempts...just 11!

He needed 2 be utilized more. You don't abandon the run when there's no need to.

I guess there's no use arguing about it now. What's done is done.

I know right? You have a chance for a playoff berth and you rely on your rookie QB instead of your beast RB SJ39 to win you the game. Granted, if the receivers didn't drop some balls things could have gone differently.

Oh well, but you guys are right. Let's move forward and hope we become winners sooner than later.

Again, and this came out at the time--the coaches called runs on a lot of those passes. Carrol had seen film and saw the kinds of defenses that led Bradford to audible out of runs. It was a set up for a rookie qb.

And if the receivers catch them, they don't lose.

 

[Anonymous]

I read an article where Pete carroll had said that they would look at game tape and when the defense was in a particular set, the rams would switch a run play to a pass play. This made them take Jackson out of the game and put the game in Bradford's hand.

If this is true I can't believe they didn't catch on to this.

But...it's Steven freakin Jackson. He had 45 yards on 11 attempts...just 11!

He needed 2 be utilized more. You don't abandon the run when there's no need to.

I guess there's no use arguing about it now. What's done is done.

Yep. Rear-view.

I don't understand about the RB coach though. Jackson has more experience than his coach and is actually prepping his coach for the rigors of a full NFL season? Uh, how's that song go? "One of these things is not like the other ... one of these does not belong..."

On that comment...what I got from Jackson saying that is that the coach wanted certain things on running plays and SJ was just saying no you can't do it like that if you want to last 20 games. He's not prepping the coach, he's talking about how a runner makes it through a season which gets down to how you do certain things.

I would have no idea what the specifics were. But it all sounded like technique issues and such.

 

[-X-]

I read an article where Pete carroll had said that they would look at game tape and when the defense was in a particular set, the rams would switch a run play to a pass play. This made them take Jackson out of the game and put the game in Bradford's hand.

If this is true I can't believe they didn't catch on to this.

But...it's Steven freakin Jackson. He had 45 yards on 11 attempts...just 11!

He needed 2 be utilized more. You don't abandon the run when there's no need to.

I guess there's no use arguing about it now. What's done is done.

Yep. Rear-view.

I don't understand about the RB coach though. Jackson has more experience than his coach and is actually prepping his coach for the rigors of a full NFL season? Uh, how's that song go? "One of these things is not like the other ... one of these does not belong..."

On that comment...what I got from Jackson saying that is that the coach wanted certain things on running plays and SJ was just saying no you can't do it like that if you want to last 20 games. He's not prepping the coach, he's talking about how a runner makes it through a season which gets down to how you do certain things.

I would have no idea what the specifics were. But it all sounded like technique issues and such.

What I was referring to was, his position coach is a rookie in the NFL and Jackson has 8 years exp. And if he's (according to your interpretation of the quote) telling him how a runner makes it through an entire season, then yeah; he's prepping his coach for the season.

Here's the quote:

[textarea]Of Ben Sirmans, Jackson said. "He has a fresh pair of eyes. Where some things that may have become a bad habit or something, he has fresh eyes, he can see. But it's definitely going to be a learning experience for both of us. He has to learn how long the NFL season is, what it takes to keep a guy fresh for 20-some odd weeks and hopefully prepare for a playoff run."

http://www.ksdk.com/sports/article/3251 ... 012-season[/textarea]

 

[Anonymous]

I read an article where Pete carroll had said that they would look at game tape and when the defense was in a particular set, the rams would switch a run play to a pass play. This made them take Jackson out of the game and put the game in Bradford's hand.

If this is true I can't believe they didn't catch on to this.

But...it's Steven freakin Jackson. He had 45 yards on 11 attempts...just 11!

He needed 2 be utilized more. You don't abandon the run when there's no need to.

I guess there's no use arguing about it now. What's done is done.

Yep. Rear-view.

I don't understand about the RB coach though. Jackson has more experience than his coach and is actually prepping his coach for the rigors of a full NFL season? Uh, how's that song go? "One of these things is not like the other ... one of these does not belong..."

On that comment...what I got from Jackson saying that is that the coach wanted certain things on running plays and SJ was just saying no you can't do it like that if you want to last 20 games. He's not prepping the coach, he's talking about how a runner makes it through a season which gets down to how you do certain things.

I would have no idea what the specifics were. But it all sounded like technique issues and such.

What I was referring to was, his position coach is a rookie in the NFL and Jackson has 8 years exp. And if he's (according to your interpretation of the quote) telling him how a runner makes it through an entire season, then yeah; he's prepping his coach for the season.

I remember the quote. We just meant different things by "prepping for the season." You meant it one way, I read it another. Just a simple net "talking past one another" thing.

 

[Thordaddy]

I read an article where Pete carroll had said that they would look at game tape and when the defense was in a particular set, the rams would switch a run play to a pass play. This made them take Jackson out of the game and put the game in Bradford's hand.

If this is true I can't believe they didn't catch on to this.

But...it's Steven freakin Jackson. He had 45 yards on 11 attempts...just 11!

He needed 2 be utilized more. You don't abandon the run when there's no need to.

I guess there's no use arguing about it now. What's done is done.

They conceded the run. Their entire thing was to get Bradford to pass. Fact is, that was Jackson's worst season because he was banged up all year. He was not the same feared runner that year. In any event, as was said at the time, after the game, the reason they ran less than normal in that game is because they "baited" Bradford into audibles with disguised defenses. It was an old fox D coordinator messing with a rookie qb.They could have told him not to audible I guess. But many of what ended up being passes were called as runs, but got audibled into passes.

And even given that, if the receivers had an even decent game, it's a different story.

And so it was decided that EVEN though he was showing the wear and tear of several seasons it would be acceptable to put two more old backs behind him the next year.
I'm with SJ, we were outcoached in that game, not that Carroll and company aren't damned good, he found a weakness and exploited it. But ONCE you know the competition is better, you HAVE to get better than them or accept being second to them until you improve.
Harbaugh, Carroll, Wisenhunt,Spagnuolo that was the order of competence in the NFC West last year,I think SJ is saying Fisher gives us a better chance to shake that order up or even move to the top of that list

BTW X, I watched The Big Lebowski yesterday for the first time, I have no idea how I missed that till now it's a hoot.

 

[Ram Quixote]

I read an article where Pete carroll had said that they would look at game tape and when the defense was in a particular set, the rams would switch a run play to a pass play. This made them take Jackson out of the game and put the game in Bradford's hand.

If this is true I can't believe they didn't catch on to this.

But...it's Steven freakin Jackson. He had 45 yards on 11 attempts...just 11!

He needed 2 be utilized more. You don't abandon the run when there's no need to.

I guess there's no use arguing about it now. What's done is done.

They conceded the run. Their entire thing was to get Bradford to pass. Fact is, that was Jackson's worst season because he was banged up all year. He was not the same feared runner that year. In any event, as was said at the time, after the game, the reason they ran less than normal in that game is because they "baited" Bradford into audibles with disguised defenses. It was an old fox D coordinator messing with a rookie qb.They could have told him not to audible I guess. But many of what ended up being passes were called as runs, but got audibled into passes.

And even given that, if the receivers had an even decent game, it's a different story.

And so it was decided that EVEN though he was showing the wear and tear of several seasons it would be acceptable to put two more old backs behind him the next year.
I'm with SJ, we were outcoached in that game, not that Carroll and company aren't damned good, he found a weakness and exploited it. But ONCE you know the competition is better, you HAVE to get better than them or accept being second to them until you improve.
Harbaugh, Carroll, Wisenhunt,Spagnuolo that was the order of competence in the NFC West last year,I think SJ is saying Fisher gives us a better chance to shake that order up or even move to the top of that list

BTW X, I watched The Big Lebowski yesterday for the first time, I have no idea how I missed that till now it's a hoot.

What you're saying is that, because the opponent took advantage of a rookie QB's inexperience, in a situation that hadn't come up all season, that's on the coaching staff? To some degree, perhaps, but not to the extent that they weren't intending to run Jackson.

I watched the game too, and the loss was the result of player execution more than anything. IMO, some of what your applying here is hindsight of 2011, which has nothing to do with analyzing the game in Seattle, 2010.

 

[Anonymous]

What you're saying is that, because the opponent took advantage of a rookie QB's inexperience, in a situation that hadn't come up all season, that's on the coaching staff? To some degree, perhaps, but not to the extent that they weren't intending to run Jackson.

I watched the game too, and the loss was the result of player execution more than anything. IMO, some of what your applying here is hindsight of 2011, which has nothing to do with analyzing the game in Seattle, 2010.

See that's how I felt watching that game. That team had a thin margin for error and really wasn't a 7 win team. But they got the most out of what they had--till then. In Seattle, they pushed that margin...and it came down to execution. Execution broke a little in that game. I suppose it's no surprise that Seattle is the place where that would happen, being such a hard place to play on the road.

I remember after the game there was a vigorous discussion around the net about how they kept audibling out of runs (as opposed to them not calling runs from the sideline).

 

[Angry Ram]

What you're saying is that, because the opponent took advantage of a rookie QB's inexperience, in a situation that hadn't come up all season, that's on the coaching staff? To some degree, perhaps, but not to the extent that they weren't intending to run Jackson.

I watched the game too, and the loss was the result of player execution more than anything. IMO, some of what your applying here is hindsight of 2011, which has nothing to do with analyzing the game in Seattle, 2010.

See that's how I felt watching that game. That team had a thin margin for error and really wasn't a 7 win team. But they got the most out of what they had--till then. In Seattle, they pushed that margin...and it came down to execution. Execution broke a little in that game. I suppose it's no surprise that Seattle is the place where that would happen, being such a hard place to play on the road.

I remember after the game there was a vigorous discussion around the net about how they kept audibling out of runs (as opposed to them not calling runs from the sideline).

No see, here's where I disagree completely. You don't win 7 games if you aren't a 7 win team. You don't win 7 flukes. Maybe a couple, here or there based on lucky bounces or ref calls or a timely pick 6. 2 wins 2 to 7 wins isn't flukey.

They easily could've had 3 more Ws (against Oakland, Tampa, @ SF) had they made a couple more plays or the refs actually let them play football.

Anyway, regardless of what happened in the past, I just want these coaches 2 not overthink and use their best players. Not get cute, just smash it in w/ SJack or Pead now.

 

[Thordaddy]

I read an article where Pete carroll had said that they would look at game tape and when the defense was in a particular set, the rams would switch a run play to a pass play. This made them take Jackson out of the game and put the game in Bradford's hand.

If this is true I can't believe they didn't catch on to this.

But...it's Steven freakin Jackson. He had 45 yards on 11 attempts...just 11!

He needed 2 be utilized more. You don't abandon the run when there's no need to.

I guess there's no use arguing about it now. What's done is done.

They conceded the run. Their entire thing was to get Bradford to pass. Fact is, that was Jackson's worst season because he was banged up all year. He was not the same feared runner that year. In any event, as was said at the time, after the game, the reason they ran less than normal in that game is because they "baited" Bradford into audibles with disguised defenses. It was an old fox D coordinator messing with a rookie qb.They could have told him not to audible I guess. But many of what ended up being passes were called as runs, but got audibled into passes.

And even given that, if the receivers had an even decent game, it's a different story.

And so it was decided that EVEN though he was showing the wear and tear of several seasons it would be acceptable to put two more old backs behind him the next year.
I'm with SJ, we were outcoached in that game, not that Carroll and company aren't damned good, he found a weakness and exploited it. But ONCE you know the competition is better, you HAVE to get better than them or accept being second to them until you improve.
Harbaugh, Carroll, Wisenhunt,Spagnuolo that was the order of competence in the NFC West last year,I think SJ is saying Fisher gives us a better chance to shake that order up or even move to the top of that list

BTW X, I watched The Big Lebowski yesterday for the first time, I have no idea how I missed that till now it's a hoot.

What you're saying is that, because the opponent took advantage of a rookie QB's inexperience, in a situation that hadn't come up all season, that's on the coaching staff? To some degree, perhaps, but not to the extent that they weren't intending to run Jackson.

I watched the game too, and the loss was the result of player execution more than anything. IMO, some of what your applying here is hindsight of 2011, which has nothing to do with analyzing the game in Seattle, 2010.

Nope I dogged Shurmer and Spags roundly for it at the time and it was the beginning of my problem with Spags.
But address if you will:
Pete Caroll multiple national championships as a HC in college beating us regularly
Ken Wisenhunt took the Cardinals one of the worst franchises in the league to their only SB appearance and nearly winning it
Harbaugh taking a team to the NFc championship game in his first season after a successful career as a HC with Stanford where he coached Andrew Luck up to be "the most NFL rady QB since Manning.
I have to believe most outsiders would agree we had the fourth best coach in the division and if we were going to have the best we were either going to have to wait and HOPE he became the best or hire someone we thought was already there.
I can see where my reference to the RB situation would mix the message ,but I've been on that schtick from the second that final gun sounded, dropped passes? they happen,but when another staff figures out your tendencies and game plans around them YOU have become predictable and THAT is your own fault,when that happens you've been out coached.
IT WAS WHY I was happy to see Shurmer go, I believed he USED Bradford to get the Cleveland job and pounding the rock in that game wasn't contributory to that effort.
NO it had NOTHING to do with last year,sorry I misled you to think that.