Trestman could be best fit for Austin, Bailey and the Rams

[Blue and Gold]

http://wvupros.com/featured/trestman-fit-austin-bailey-rams/

Trestman could be best fit for Austin, Bailey and the Rams

MATT WELCH , JANUARY 13, 2015 / 457 0

While it seems the St. Louis Rams are taking their sweet time when it comes to filling the void for offensive coordinator, one man’s name should rise to the top of their list: Marc Trestman.

Trestman tested the waters of the NFL head coaching world with the Chicago Bears and had miserable results, going 5-11 overall and 1-5 in the NFC North.

Trestman, though, did produce a nice passing offense. His Bears ranked 15th in the league with 237.0 yards per game. Quarterback Jay Cutler threw for 3,800 yards and 28 touchdowns albeit with 18 interceptions.

Trestman’s offense produced a 1,000 yard rusher and a 1,000 yard receiver in Matt Forte and Alshon Jefferey and the team had three other players catch passes for over 700 yards this season, including Forte, tight end Martellus Bennett and wideout Brandon Marshall. Jeffery and Marshall combined for 18 touchdowns.

Then you look at St. Louis, the 23rd-ranked passing offense in the league (212.5 YPG).

The Rams leading receiver was Kenny Britt with 48 receptions for 748 yards and three touchdowns.

The Bears and the Rams are more similar than you’d think, however, despite their difference in numbers.

Take away St. Louis’ struggling QB situation and you almost have the same team.

As far as receivers go, the Rams have Britt and Brian Quick manning the outside while WVU’s Stedman Bailey and Tavon Austin take care of slot duties. Austin, much like Forte, could be a viable pass-catching option out of the backfield, as well.

But the big kicker?

St. Louis has talented tight ends in Jared Cook and Lance Kendricks. Trestman utilized a tight end, Bennett, very well while in Chicago and could do the same in St. Louis.

Trestman is known as a quarterback whisperer and that simple fact could do wonders for St. Louis, whose signal caller position is up in the air heading into the 2015 season.

One of the biggest knocks on the Rams in the past two years from WVU fans has been the inability to use Austin and Bailey. Bailey ended up as the third leading receiver on the team after coming on late in the year, but Austin still hasn’t been unleashed on the NFL other than for punt return purposes. He had 31 receptions for just 242 yards and didn’t score once off of a pass this past season.

Trestman has a knack for making offenses go and loves to air it out. If he gets into the Rams system, you could be looking at a high-powered offense similar to what Austin and Bailey ran at West Virginia, putting them both, and the Rams, into a position to turn some heads.

 

[Alan]

That description of his offense is exactly why we won't hire him IMO.

 

[LACHAMP46]

Yeah, like @Alan said, I don't equate Trestman with Ground & Pound....

 

[HitStick]

Does nobody believe Fisher when he said there's going to be changes on offensive philosophy? Look at the names that have come up. None are really a ground and pound other that Roman.

 

[yrba1]

If Fisher is still supporting the idea of running a ground and pound offense, I expect him to be gone by the end of the season. This personnel is designed to be a balanced offense with our receivers and they all fit the Trestman mold well. As for the defense tiring out, ball control can also be applied in a passing offense as well. This team needs to establish comfortable leads so the defense can play to its strengths in obvious passing situations

 

[den-the-coach]

I'm not that big on Trestman as some although it's been a while since he's actually been an offensive coordinator in the NFL. Overall, IMO, unless Mike Shanahan goes back as an OC with the 49ers that is where I see Trestman ending up as the OC for new 49er Head Coach Jim Tomfoolery.

 

[jrry32]

Maybe. But it doesn't seem like the Rams want him. I still think Kyle Shanahan would be a good fit here.

 

[den-the-coach]

Maybe. But it doesn't seem like the Rams want him. I still think Kyle Shanahan would be a good fit here.

I concur let's just hope Fisher feels the same way. Seems like a good match for both, but when it comes to naming assistant coaches Fisher certainly takes a deliberate approach.

 

[Alan]

HitStick thinking Fish is on the level:
Does nobody believe Fisher when he said there's going to be changes on offensive philosophy?

18 INTs. Even if Fish is telling the truth and thus tipping his tip his hand, Trestman seems to be calling plays that Cutler can't reliably deliver on. You can't afford to run an offense that gives up so many turnovers. Not in the NFC West.

To directly answer your question, no, I don't believe anything Fisher says. Or any other coach/team official.

 

[Robocop]

maybe not a bad idea. put about every bit of money of top FA and draft picks into the line and why not. Fisher said before the philosophy was ground game but 2013 started in a spread offense with Bradford going 14-2 or something. get involved Fish and get involved with a balance of ground and split wide options. get possibly a young prototype but raw QB in early to mid round to pray can develop some if Bradford goes down agsain.

 

[Corbin]

I wouldn't mind Trestman but think Kyle Shannahan is a Fisher guy TBH.

 

[RaminExile]

18 INTs. Even if Fish is telling the truth and thus tipping his tip his hand, Trestman seems to be calling plays that Cutler can't reliably deliver on. You can't afford to run an offense that gives up so many turnovers. Not in the NFC West.

To directly answer your question, no, I don't believe anything Fisher says. Or any other coach/team official.

A lot of that wasn't actually play calling - it was Cutler throwing the ball late on out routes where he should have delivered the ball with better timing (i.e. anticipating the guy getting open). Its why he's described as a "coach killer" though.

 

[Ramathon]

Does anyone really think Fisher wants to run a 'ground & pound' O? And more to the point, did he ever actually say that? I don't recall that he did. I recall him saying he wanted to run the ball efficiently, but not that he specifically wanted G&P. I think that's mostly a fan base thing.

But regardless of what he said, look what they've actually done over the last couple yr, and tell me how any of this fits a G&P philosophy.....

• If you want to be a G&P O, do you draft a 'gadget player' like TA with your top pick. And more importantly, do you move up in the draft to take him?
• If you want to be a G&P O, do you open the '13 season in a much more open style? And only change to more run oriented after about the 4th-5th game when it's become clear the 'open' style isn't working?
• If you want to be a G&P O, do you make one of your premier FA signings a pass catching TE w/ severely limited blocking skills?
• If you want to be a G&P O, do you draft a not overly large RB like Mason? I like him & all, and think he can be a pretty good back, but he's certainly not the type I would have gone after for a G&P philosophy. From my perspective, Eddie Lacy or Carlos Hyde would have much better fit that mold.
• If you want to be a G&P O, do you pass more than run in '14 with your #2 &#3 QB's running the show all year?

I mean, that's just a few things that come to mind that shed a little light on Fisher's philosophy. Regardless of what he says, the evidence pretty strongly suggests to me he is not married to a G&P approach.

 

[Alan]

RaminExile thinking it's mostly execution:
A lot of that wasn't actually play calling - it was Cutler throwing the ball late on out routes where he should have delivered the ball with better timing (i.e. anticipating the guy getting open).

No doubt that much of it is execution and everyone makes mistakes. But riddle me this, if you have a QB who isn't good on timing routes do you call many of those? Of course many if not most passing plays require some amount of timing but it's just one example of what I'm talking about.

Again, it's all about maximizing what you have and not what you wish you had. That and having position coaches that can teach/improve their skills in the areas where they're lacking. A good example of that would be the offense that McD tried to institute. Simplifying the offense to a level they can handle is another. McD never understood that concept IMO.

 

[NJRamsFan]

I dont see the similarities between Quick, Britt, Tavon, Mason and Jefferey, Marshall and Forte..

 

[Alan]

Ramathon looking at some of the facts on the ground:
Does anyone really think Fisher wants to run a 'ground & pound' O? And more to the point, did he ever actually say that? I don't recall that he did. I recall him saying he wanted to run the ball efficiently, but not that he specifically wanted G&P. I think that's mostly a fan base thing.

But regardless of what he said, look what they've actually done over the last couple yr, and tell me how any of this fits a G&P philosophy.....

• If you want to be a G&P O, do you draft a 'gadget player' like TA with your top pick. And more importantly, do you move up in the draft to take him?
• If you want to be a G&P O, do you open the '13 season in a much more open style? And only change to more run oriented after about the 4th-5th game when it's become clear the 'open' style isn't working?
• If you want to be a G&P O, do you make one of your premier FA signings a pass catching TE w/ severely limited blocking skills?
• If you want to be a G&P O, do you draft a not overly large RB like Mason? I like him & all, and think he can be a pretty good back, but he's certainly not the type I would have gone after for a G&P philosophy. From my perspective, Eddie Lacy or Carlos Hyde would have much better fit that mold.
• If you want to be a G&P O, do you pass more than run in '14 with your #2 &#3 QB's running the show all year?

I mean, that's just a few things that come to mind that shed a little light on Fisher's philosophy. Regardless of what he says, the evidence pretty strongly suggests to me he is not married to a G&P approach.

Agreed with reservations:
You still need to have a passing O that the defense fears and that's why they went after TA. Of course i thought that was a lousy idea.

Using the pass to aid the running game? Was that Fisher giving Schotty a chance to run the type of O that he knows best? Knowing that the run Ds in the NFCW are so stout that you need to have a robust passing game too? That and the bad play calling many have been talking about.

See my reasoning above for signing Cook and note that all the rest of our TE's are blocking types. Not to mention that the TE attack is all the rage now because of the mismatch a fast agile TE gives you.

Greater needs at other positions and getting the best RB available after you've addressed those other needs? Those RBs you mentioned went pretty high didn't they?

G&P doesn't mean you pass more than you run. In addition, if your O-line isn't good enough to open holes for the running game you can't put yourself in third and long all the time right? Execution by the O-line is even more key to a successful running attack than a RB like Lacy and Hyde IMO. How many times did our running game fail on third and short? That and the bad play calling many have been talking about.

Frankly, I think Fish has been preoccupied with building a great D and he's just now (we all hope) getting around to getting the right building blocks to run that G&P O. As in getting some premium O-line talent.

I think ground and pound doesn't have quite the same meaning in today's NFL as it had in days past. I think Fish wants to run the newer version of that.

 

[Ramathon]

Agreed with reservations:
......
I think ground and pound doesn't have quite the same meaning in today's NFL as it had in days past. I think Fish wants to run the newer version of that.

Well, when we get down to brass tacks, I want an OC smart enough to put together a gameplan that's best suited to winning each individual game, and don't really give a hoot if it's G&P, 'open', passing oriented, or whatever.

As much as it pains me to give the Cheatriots any recognition, the one thing they do extraordinarily well is attack the weakness in the opposition's D. It's why they can have an unknown RB like Jonas freakin' Gray go off for what, 190+ yds in one game this season, and then in a postseason game, they don't call a single running play the entire 2nd half. Because they're not trying to 'run their offense' and letting the chips fall where they may, it's because their philosophy is to exploit your weaknesses. The whole "we've got to run our offense" (regardless of what that is) is just passé, and only works consistently if/when you have more talent than the opposition.

 

[Alan]

Ramathon being the voice of reason:
Well, when we get down to brass tacks, I want an OC smart enough to put together a gameplan that's best suited to winning each individual game, and don't really give a hoot if it's G&P, 'open', passing oriented, or whatever.

As much as it pains me to give the Cheatriots any recognition, the one thing they do extraordinarily well is attack the weakness in the opposition's D. It's why they can have an unknown RB like Jonas freakin' Gray go off for what, 190+ yds in one game this season, and then in a postseason game, they don't call a single running play the entire 2nd half. Because they're not trying to 'run their offense' and letting the chips fall where they may, it's because their philosophy is to exploit your weaknesses. The whole "we've got to run our offense" (regardless of what that is) is just passé, and only works consistently if/when you have more talent than the opposition.

Hubris often gets in the way (see Martz) of that but it's impossible not to agree with your take.

 

[-X-]

View: https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/557635548471623680

 

[TheDYVKX]

View: https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/557635548471623680

Looks like Gase is set to be a Jaguar now too.