Well Played Schotty

[Jumava1968]

I'm on the fence with our OC while it is frustrating at times he has shown he can call a good game.But if Bradford is the Qb next year I say keep Schotty here because Sam knows this offense 100% by now.And the last thing I want to see is that were struggling next year because Bradford is learning a new system.

 

[blue4]

I've been pretty critical of him this year, and I think it's deserved. But he did really well today. Used the screen, took what the defense gave him, and for the first time seemed to call runs based on the skill set of the RB in the game. I liked the pitch and the sweep for Mason. Player execution was up today too. I know that some people use that as an excuse to defend his playcalling, but as the OC he's responsible for that too. Good job today.

 

[Dodgersrf]

It's not Shotty, it's the QB coach.

Damn funny. That's one heck of a coach.

 

[Dodgersrf]

Like I said, not impressed. I'm not hating on him.........I am consistent on how I see Schotty. People are excited about the win so they want to stay positive.....that's fine.

Schotty and the offense didn't score 50. The defense also got them the ball in prime field position all day long. The team scored 50, but it's fairly clear that the two most important factors in todays game were:

1. The Rams awesome Defense
2. Playing the worst team in the NFL = The Raiders

The Raiders are still an NFL team.
This isn't college where we're playing Hazzard County Community College.

 

[Alan]

Now that the euphoria of our win is partially in our rear view mirror and I won't be raining on anyone's parade, I have a couple of (rhetorical) questions to ask.

Why, as usual, did our offense disappear in the second half? Was it just that we were protecting our lead? Sudden strange lack of execution? I don't think either of them, added together, isn't much more than 50% of the answer. Or was it the dreaded "lack of a response to their halftime adjustments" that was the problem. We had 307 yards at halftime and we finished with 348. 41 total yards in the second half.

While all those passes in the first half marched us down the field in great fashion, what happened to our run centric offense? Did we pass so often because Schotty had zero confidence in our O-line's ability to run block? While we opened a huge gaping hole on Tre's 89 yard romp, he was only 13 for 28 yards on the rest of his runs. The rest of the Rams RBs fared a little better thanks to some misdirection runs by Austin, getting 54 yards on 10 carries (I subtracted 2 runs by Hill because he isn't a RB).

What is our identity as an offense?

Those are just some of the questions I ponder when thinking about Schotty's (and the Rams as a whole) performance.

 

[CoachO]

While all those passes in the first half marched us down the field in great fashion, what happened to our run centric offense? Did we pass so often because Schotty had zero confidence in our O-line's ability to run block?

Did you happen to see Fisher's comments regarding HILL checking out of the run plays that were called and change them to passes in the first half? He said that was done at least 6 times early on, as Hill had a "good feel" for what the Raiders were doing. I think this goes a long way in addressing your "concerns" about the identity and Schottenheimer's "confidence" in the offense. Things aren't always what they appear, but hey, conspiracy theories make things more fun to talk about.

As to the second half, when they are up by 38 points, IMO, it was more a case of "respecting" the game, and not trying to run it up on the scoreboard. While I agree with you that the execution was not what it needed to be, I got the sense that they were more interested in getting the game over and getting out of there without getting anyone hurt.

 

[Alan]

CoachO with new (for me) revelations:
Did you happen to see Fisher's comments regarding HILL checking out of the run plays that were called and change them to passes in the first half? He said that was done at least 6 times early on, as Hill had a "good feel" for what the Raiders were doing. I think this goes a long way in addressing your "concerns" about he identity and Schottenheimer's "confidence" in the offense. Things aren't always what they appear, but hey, conspiracy theories make things more fun to talk about.

As to the second half, when they are up by 38 points, IMO, it was more a case of "respecting" the game, and not trying to run it up on the scoreboard. While I agree with you that the execution was not what it needed to be, I got the sense that they were more interested in getting the game over and getting out of there without getting anyone hurt.

First, thanks for informing me of what Fisher said.

http://www.chatsports.com/st-louis-...me-Quotes-from-HC-Jeff-Fisher-Team-2-10797455
"We had a lot of runs called and Shaun had the option to throw the ball out sideways. I think he avoided six runs in the first two or three series, but we were getting first downs. And so to say we made the adjustments and creased them on the long run."

While that makes me feel better about his confidence in our ability to run block, what does that say about Schotty's play calling since Hill seems to have been radically changing his game plan? As I was giving Schotty quite of bit of credit for his game calling in the first half I guess I'll have to revise that. Now I'm not sure who should get the credit. That might explain why I actually liked what we did.

What conspiracy? I made no such claim or inference. Nor do I generally believe in ANY conspiracies. They make good movies though. You appear to have misread that part of my post.

As for your comments about why we only gained 41 yards the whole second half, why then didn't we put in most of our second string offense so we could minimize the injuries to our starters? Those two thoughts don't seem to fit together do they?

 

[CoachO]

First, thanks for informing of what Fisher said.

http://www.chatsports.com/st-louis-...me-Quotes-from-HC-Jeff-Fisher-Team-2-10797455
"We had a lot of runs called and Shaun had the option to throw the ball out sideways. I think he avoided six runs in the first two or three series, but we were getting first downs. And so to say we made the adjustments and creased them on the long run."

While that makes me feel better about his confidence in our ability to run block, what does that say about Schotty's play calling since Hill seems to have been radically changing his game plan? As I was giving him quite of bit of credit for his game calling in the first half I guess I'll have to revise that. Now I'm not sure who should get the credit. That might explain why I actually liked what we did.

What conspiracy? I made no such claim or inference. Nor do I generally believe in ANY conspiracies. They make good movies though. You appear to have misread that part of my post.

As for you comments on the thinking about why we only gained 41 yards the whole second half, why then didn't we put in most of our second string offense so we could minimize the injuries to our starters? Those two thoughts don't seem to fit together do they?

Look at the snap counts after the middle of the 3rd quarter. Not sure what you are expecting. With a 45 man roster, its not like they have a full 2nd unit available. They only dressed 7 Olinemen, and they lost Saffold, so Person came in. That left Barnes as the lone OL.

Givens, Stacy, Bayer and Davis all got snaps in the 4th qtr. Jenkins and Long were very limited in the 2nd half. That left Barron playing more snaps in any game as a Ram. He even took snaps as the single high safety late in the game, as McLeod moved into the slot once Jenkins was done.

As to the contention that Hill deserves most of the credit checking out of the original play, and somehow that makes you question Schottenheimer's original play call, then it would appear you don't understand how checking out of the run to a pass actually works. Each and every play called in the huddle has different checks to it. Its based on formation and the read at the LOS. When a QB checks a run to a pass, as was the case yesterday (and every game), that play is part of the original play call. It's not like the QB just decides to run an entirely different play.

I guess I should have used another word than conspiracy. But in this case, it seems as if you were trying to look very hard for a reason to dump on Schottenheimer.

 

[Pancake]

Look at the snap counts after the middle of the 3rd quarter. Not sure what you are expecting. With a 45 man roster, its not like they have a full 2nd unit available. They only dressed 7 Olinemen, and they lost Saffold, so Person came in. That left Barnes as the lone OL.

Givens, Stacy, Bayer and Davis all got snaps in the 4th qtr. Jenkins and Long were very limited in the 2nd half. That left Barron playing more snaps in any game as a Ram. He even took snaps as the single high safety late in the game, as McLeod moved into the slot once Jenkins was done.

As to the contention that Hill deserves most of the credit checking out of the original play, and somehow that makes you question Schottenheimer's original play call, then it would appear you don't understand how checking out of the run to a pass actually works. Each and every play called in the huddle has different checks to it. Its based on formation and the read at the LOS. When a QB checks a run to a pass, as was the case yesterday (and every game), that play is part of the original play call. It's not like the QB just decides to run an entirely different play.

I guess I should have used another word than conspiracy. But in this case, it seems as if you were trying to look very hard for a reason to dump on Schottenheimer.

The QB might not be entirely changing the play but he is having to override the original calls none the less. Hill does deserve quite a bit of credit for making the calls.

 

[-X-]

The QB might not be entirely changing the play but he is having to override the original calls none the less. Hill does deserve quite a bit of credit for making the calls.

Of course he does. It's awesome when a QB can turn a pre-snap read into a different play. I think CoachO is just reminding that the OC calls the play based on the previous coverage and what he perceives to be vulnerabilities. Once the defense lines up, it's up to the QB to determine if he can be successful with it based on what he sees. It's reassuring to hear that Hill's experience in reading defenses is translating into audibles. He's no Peyton Manning, but hell ... I'll take it.

 

[A55VA6]

I think Schotty was great yesterday. I thought Hill also made some great audibles at the line. Checked out of the run several times and made nice plays with his arm.

 

[CoachO]

The QB might not be entirely changing the play but he is having to override the original calls none the less. Hill does deserve quite a bit of credit for making the calls.

I wasn't trying to imply anything different. I was merely pointing out that when he checks from a run to a pass, its all a part of the original play call. Just as it is when a QB may change the protections, or something as simple as flipping the play to be run on the other side of the formation when he gets to the LOS. These are all part of the presnap reads that are made all the time.

And is why the EXPERIENCE cannot be overlooked. Again, it still takes good execution from the 11 players on the field. Just saying, its not always about the original play call sent in by the OC when a play works or doesn't.

 

[Alan]

CoachO trying to get by with this:
Look at the snap counts after the middle of the 3rd quarter. Not sure what you are expecting. With a 45 man roster, its not like they have a full 2nd unit available. They only dressed 7 Olinemen, and they lost Saffold, so Person came in. That left Barnes as the lone OL.

Givens, Stacy, Bayer and Davis all got snaps in the 4th qtr. Jenkins and Long were very limited in the 2nd half. That left Barron playing more snaps in any game as a Ram. He even took snaps as the single high safety late in the game, as McLeod moved into the slot once Jenkins was done.

You're not sure what I'm expecting? I'm not expecting anything. I'm merely pointing out that contrary to your hypothesis, they didn't appear to merely want to get out of Dodge with the victory. In addition, you're not even arguing with what I said. Person only came in as an injury replacement and not because the victory was assured and they could get him some playing time. Saying that they don't have a full second string says what about my point? They didn't, as you contend, appear to think the game was over except for the shouting bec ause they didn't make wholesale replacements of the Offensive starters.

While you made it clear that it was only in your opinion that they were unconcerned about the final outcome of the game you have still not made it clear to me why you think this. I merely pointed out what I believed to be a flaw in your hypothesis and you haven't, to my satisfaction, adequately addressed the "flaw I noted nor given any additional reasons why you came to that opinion in the first place. Not that you have to come up with any reasons at all. It could merely be your gut reaction based on your years of experience.

As to the contention that Hill deserves most of the credit checking out of the original play, and somehow that makes you question Schottenheimer's original play call, then it would appear you don't understand how checking out of the run to a pass actually works. Each and every play called in the huddle has different checks to it. Its based on formation and the read at the LOS. When a QB checks a run to a pass, as was the case yesterday (and every game), that play is part of the original play call. It's not like the QB just decides to run an entirely different play.

I made no such contention. To refresh your memory, here is what I actually said: "Now I'm not sure who should get the credit." Hill could have been listening to anyone in the huddle or someone on the line (the center?) saying what they saw about the defensive scheme. Who knows? What I do know is that it appears a substantial part of the credit I gave to Schotty for the game planning (/opening scripted plays) that I liked in the first half MIGHT have been misplaced.

Thanks for explaining to me how that works because I very well might have needed the explanation. In this case I didn't. I completely understood what Fish meant when he said this: "Shaun had the option to throw the ball out sideways". It is my contention that fall backs, while necessary, aren't part of how he sees what will work but rather what should be done if he's wrong. Maybe that's not the best way to look at it and I'll keep that in mind (still) in the future.

I guess I should have used another word than conspiracy. But in this case, it seems as if you were trying to look very hard for a reason to dump on Schottenheimer.

The same can be said for you trying very hard to find reasons why getting only 41 yards of offense isn't a bad thing. Perhaps we should both do a quick sanity check. Could be we both have agendas eh? Or maybe we just see things differently? :eek:

 

[CoachO]

The same can be said for you trying very hard to find reasons why getting only 41 yards of offense isn't a bad thing. Perhaps we should both do a quick sanity check. Could be we both have agendas eh? Or maybe we just see things differently? :eek:

I have no agenda here at all. I just don't seem to share the same contempt for the coaching staff, in this case, specifically Schottenheimer as you appear to have.

I guess I don't seem to get your definition of what wholesale changes you think would have been made. So if I didn't satisfy YOUR definition, then I apologize. My contention is, with a 45 man game day roster, wholesale changes just aren't as wholesale as you might think.


Let's see: They dressed 7 on the Oline: Robinson, Saffold, Wells, Joseph, Barksdale, Person and Barnes. 5 RBs: Mason, Stacy, Cunningham, Watts and Reynolds 4 WRs: Britt, Bailey, Austin Givens. 4 TE's: Cook, Kendricks, Harkey, Bayer 2 QB's: Hill Davis

That's 22 offensive players. The only 2 that didn't get regular reps were Watts and Barnes. Stacy got more reps (carries) this week then in any game for over a month. Givens was on the field for most of the 4th qtr. Even Bayer got reps in place of Harkey in the 4th qtr, along with Davis.

Now on Defense: 7 DL: Long, Quinn, Hayes, Sims, Brockers, Donald, Langford. (they ALL got reps throughout the entire game, with Long not playing much at all in the second half) 5 LB's: Laurinaitis, Ogletree, Dunbar, Bates, Toomer 8 DB's: Jenkins, Johnson, Gaines, McDonald, McLeod, Barron, Alexander, C. Davis.

Jenkins (injury) and Long played very few snaps in the 2nd half. Barron played more than any other game. The ONLY other defensive players who didn't get reps were Alexander, C. Davis, Bates and Toomer.

Again, not sure what you consider wholesale changes, because they just don't have a full roster of backups to insert on either side of the ball. And they were still working on a shutout, so making these wholesale changes on that side of the ball wasn't necessarily part of the plan.

So they only had 41 yards of offense in the 2nd half. So what? What would you have liked them to do? Gain another 200 yards and run up the score even more? To what extent? Even my wife knew what was going on. In fact, SHE made the comment that "I guess its too soon to take a knee" in the middle of the 3rd quarter.

 

[Alan]

CoachO giving an example of the problem:
I have no agenda here at all. I just don't seem to share the same contempt for the coaching staff, in this case, specifically Schottenheimer as you appear to have.

You've accidentally hit on one of the main differences between us CoachO. You have no agenda. You merely see things correctly while I do have an agenda and I twist the facts in an attempt to support it.

 

[WestCoastRam]

I've been pretty critical of him this year, and I think it's deserved. But he did really well today. Used the screen, took what the defense gave him, and for the first time seemed to call runs based on the skill set of the RB in the game. I liked the pitch and the sweep for Mason. Player execution was up today too. I know that some people use that as an excuse to defend his playcalling, but as the OC he's responsible for that too. Good job today.

Haven't seen a Rams team run a sweep well in years. Think it's in no small part to Mason and GRob. Also, having Saffold at LG, we should be running sweeps to the left a lot more.

 

[LazyWinker]

So they only had 41 yards of offense in the 2nd half. So what? What would you have liked them to do? Gain another 200 yards and run up the score even more? To what extent? Even my wife knew what was going on. In fact, SHE made the comment that "I guess its too soon to take a knee" in the middle of the 3rd quarter.

Steve Spurrier doesn't coach the Rams so I expect them to do the classy thing and not run up the score... nothing like calling a time out while you're up by a mile in the 4th quarter so you can get one more TD. If the Raiders game plan was to take a knee, perhaps they wouldn't have been beaten so badly. I'm furious that the Rams didn't win the Time of Possession game.

 

[iamme33]

While all those passes in the first half marched us down the field in great fashion, what happened to our run centric offense? Did we pass so often because Schotty had zero confidence in our O-line's ability to run block? While we opened a huge gaping hole on Tre's 89 yard romp, he was only 13 for 28 yards on the rest of his runs. The rest of the Rams RBs fared a little better thanks to some misdirection runs by Austin, getting 54 yards on 10 carries (I subtracted 2 runs by Hill because he isn't a RB).


well we have all heard the that you run to set up to set up the pass but maybe you can also pass to set up the run ( mike marts, marshall falk ).

 

[CoachO]

You've accidentally hit on one of the main differences between us CoachO. You have no agenda. You merely see things correctly while I do have an agenda and I twist the facts in an attempt to support it.

I am not the one who brought up the word agenda. I see things and talk about MY OPINION of what I see. How that is interpreted and me saying anything more than that, is more about you and than me.

I just don't get why you get so defensive Alan when someone actually questions your statements. This is not the first time you have lashed out at me because I disagree with you. Are you gonna try to tell me how I was banned again?

 

[dbrooks25]

If we're gonna jump on him when the play calling is bad, we gotta give him credit when it's good. Well done, Schotty!