Black Monday Primer

[jrry32]

I still hate that organizations have allowed themselves to have their destiny shaped by whether or not they have a "franchise" QB when there are simply so few in existence. And even if you think you have a decent starter, you season can still be jeopardy if he gets hurt. Sad.

With a loss tomorrow, Jeff Fisher's Rams might have even been 5-11 with a decent goal line camera angle in San Francisco.

Okay...and we've might have been 9-7 without the Cook drop against Dallas and Hill's terrible INT against SD. We might have been 10-6 if you add in Davis hitting the open Givens rather than throwing a pick against Arizona.(if we beat Seattle)

Easy to play that game with a team that played a lot of close games.

 

[CoachO]

How many of those teams have been without their "franchise QB" for 31/64 games over the last 4 seasons? Near 50%. I actually love Bradford, but they gambled, and gambled poorly.

At the time, he had missed the final 9 games of 2013, and 6 games in 2011. Meaning he had played in 49 of 64 leading up to THIS SEASON. So going into the season, to say they should have EXPECTED him to suffer another fluke injury is hindsight.

Don't care about burning that pick on Bortles. But it's nonsensical imo to think that Carr, and probably Bridgewater, wouldn't have won us more games in the long run. So yea, we'll have to disagree I guess. I think both are more talented by bar than Davis and most certainly possess more physical talent than Hill.

We differ on how much they would have contributed to THIS team THIS YEAR. Not arguing the point that they are better than Davis and would be a better option in 2015 and beyond, but they were not going to

Teddy Bridgewater

Moving forward, I agree. But he would not have been prepared on THIS TEAM to step in. Just my opinion. Either way, we will never know.

 

[jrry32]

Moving forward, I agree. But he would not have been prepared on THIS TEAM to step in. Just my opinion. Either way, we will never know.

Would have struggled the first few games but just like he did in Minnesota, he would have progressed throughout the year and been playing well over the second half of the season.

 

[CoachO]

For MIN? Still reeling from losing cpt. #1 in Bradford for the year, and shortly into that game, cpt. #2 in Long.

Seriously? That is what you are going to use to excuse the DEFENSIVE performance in the Minnesota game?

14 points against the Whiners isn't a big lead, especially when the offense went into a shell after it's 2nd TD. The offense was a sad miserable baby's diaper in the 2nd half and I remember you tooting your horn against Davis after the fact. That and not and not running enough. That game

If my memory serves, it was a 80 yard TD given up in the last 30 seconds of the 1st half that turned that game around.

And while I did indeed say at the time, I felt they abandoned the running game way to early, to say they went into an offensive shell is not what they did. What they did was put the game in the hands (on the arm) of a ill-equipped 3rd string QB with ZERO success. But for all that, they still had a lead in the 2nd half and the DEFENSE couldn't protect it. Had they played at the level you seem to claim they had played all year, protecting that lead would have won that game. (that should be in blue font)

 

[Mackeyser]

Why do we keep focusing solely on QB play and ignoring that the QB play on these other teams occurs against lesser teams?

our last few seasons have consistently been with the top 3 hardest schedules in the whole damned league.

Now... you put the Texans under those conditions... and they went 2-14. They weren't vying for a playoff spot.

So, really, I don't mean to be TOO much of a crank, but just and solely beating this dead horse of "well, other teams did better with lesser QB play" is just beyond disingenuous.

I mean... it's football. We have to play...the OTHER team. When every danged year, WE have to play about the hardest schedule in football, it's really that much harder to improve.

This team in the NFC South is a 10 win team. Easy. I mean, we beat the Broncos and Seahawks at home. Look what the Colts did with the Broncos at home... They got lit up and let them drop a 50 burger on them... in their own crib.

We have a lot to improve and QB play is certainly one aspect that needs improvement. But c'mon... it's not like if we had Peyton Manning or Aaron Rodgers, our schedule would be any different...

I think some folks are forgetting that...

Now, anyone know where I return these rented soapboxes? I gotta get it back by 8pm or I lose my deposit...

 

[CoachO]

Would have struggled the first few games but just like he did in Minnesota, he would have progressed throughout the year and been playing well over the second half of the season.

I know you and I are on the same page about Davis and Fisher's "choice" to play him longer than he should have.. But I think Hill has played "well enough" to win games, that if he had been playing as early as the KC game, this team would not be staring at another losing record.

Bridgewater would not have made one bit of a difference in the Thursday night game vs. Arizona. And IMO, Hill would not have imploded like Davis did IN Arizona in a game that was there for the taking well into the 4th quarter. And even with the game killing interception in San Diego notwithstanding, Hill played well enough in that game to put us in a position to win that game as well.

I just think way too much has been made of the perceived "failure of the organization" to address the QB PRIOR to the season. Shaun Hill is/was an upgrade over Clemens by virtually everyone's account. I may be in the minority here, but if he doesn't tweak his thigh in week one, this season has a whole different look to it right now.

 

[Athos]

Seriously? That is what you are going to use to excuse the DEFENSIVE performance in the Minnesota game?

They were equally incompetent on offense, dude. And that's the only explanation I can think of for how terribly and miserably flat they looked for damn near the entire game on both sides of the both so that's what I'm rolling with for the one loss this season that makes no sense.

Moving forward, I agree. But he would not have been prepared on THIS TEAM to step in. Just my opinion. Either way, we will never know.

Eh. Without Peterson, Teddy really had no established player to rely on. For all Teddy's early season miscues, handling the blitz poorly has never been his rap, unlike Davis. I think we win more games over the course of the season with Teddy starting every single one, than Hill/Davis combo.

And while I did indeed say at the time, I felt they abandoned the running game way to early, to say they went into an offensive shell is not what they did. What they did was put the game in the hands (on the arm) of a ill-equipped 3rd string QB with ZERO success.

With clearly misplaced faith, like many of us, in his QB-ing skills. Sure the offense had the ball a long time, but they didn't do anything with it after the 1st. That's not a good O day imo.
-----

Massive early defensive issues regardless, we'd have, at worst, an 8-8 season with superior QB play. Not sure how that is even debatable. Sure we'd have also won more games with better early D execution, but QB play has been a big issue.

You've said it yourself repeatedly I might add.

 

[CoachO]

They were equally incompetent on offense, dude. And that's the only explanation I can think of for how terribly and miserably flat they looked for damn near the entire game on both sides of the both so that's what I'm rolling with for the one loss this season that makes no sense.



Eh. Without Peterson, Teddy really had no established player to rely on. For all Teddy's early season miscues, handling the blitz poorly has never been his rap, unlike Davis. I think we win more games over the course of the season with Teddy starting every single one, than Hill/Davis combo.



With clearly misplaced faith, like many of us, in his QB-ing skills. Sure the offense had the ball a long time, but they didn't do anything with it after the 1st. That's not a good O day imo.
-----

Massive early defensive issues regardless, we'd have, at worst, an 8-8 season with superior QB play. Not sure how that is even debatable. Sure we'd have also won more games with better early D execution, but QB play has been a big issue.

You've said it yourself repeatedly I might add.

I have never said that the QB play hasn't been a major stumbling block for this team THIS season. But I am also not saying, and never have, that the organization failed to address it in the off season. I have said, and still feel, that bringing Shaun Hill here was an upgrade. I also don't buy into the theory of saying because Bradford was hurt in 2013, that they should have EXPECTED him to get hurt again. I asked this before.... what did Green Bay do about putting a "Plan B" in place since Rodgers was hurt for a good portion of last year?

For me, the biggest issues was Fisher staying with Davis as long as he did. I have stood fast in what my thoughts about Davis were from the outset. IMO, this team is constructed in a way that they need CONSISTENT play from the QB position, not "superior play" as you state. If Hill would have been reinserted when he was healthy, prior to the Dallas game, if I recall, we are not having this conversation. And this team would indeed be an 8-8 at the very least. Again, its all speculative at this point.

Is Shaun Hill the answer moving forward? Of course not. Does he still provide a reasonable and experienced option as a BACKUP in 2015? I think so.

 

[jrry32]

I know you and I are on the same page about Davis and Fisher's "choice" to play him longer than he should have.. But I think Hill has played "well enough" to win games, that if he had been playing as early as the KC game, this team would not be staring at another losing record.

Eh, I don't know about that.

Bridgewater would not have made one bit of a difference in the Thursday night game vs. Arizona. And IMO, Hill would not have imploded like Davis did IN Arizona in a game that was there for the taking well into the 4th quarter. And even with the game killing interception in San Diego notwithstanding, Hill played well enough in that game to put us in a position to win that game as well.

Disagree. Bridgewater would have made a difference. I've watched the kid play. He's one of the few QBs with worst pass blocking than ours. And it's not like he has better weapons. And yet over the second half of the season, here's what Bridgewater has done:
67.1% completion%
7.5 YPA
11 TDs
6 Ints
94.4 QB Rating

Bridgewater would have made a difference in a few of our games.

Here are a few other things worth pointing out with Bridgewater:
1. He's been pressured on 40% of his dropbacks(4th worst in the NFL)
2. His accuracy% under pressure is 73.5%(best in the NFL)
3. Bridgewater is #6 in the NFL with an accuracy% of 76.1% this year

I hate to be that guy because Bridgewater is in Minnesota and there's no point dwelling on it...but that kid is really impressive for a rookie and imo, he's going to be special. The guy has been in a hellish situation this year with him losing Peterson, Patterson being benched for ineffectiveness, and having a bottom 3 pass blocking OL...and the guy has still really excelled over the second half of the year. He started slow and then really picked it up.

I just think way too much has been made of the perceived "failure of the organization" to address the QB PRIOR to the season. Shaun Hill is/was an upgrade over Clemens by virtually everyone's account. I may be in the minority here, but if he doesn't tweak his thigh in week one, this season has a whole different look to it right now.

Very possibly.

And I agree. I don't think anyone expected Sam to get hurt in the preseason.

 

[Ramathon]

How about getting rid of all our players who make mistakes or have a bad game? Then, eventually, we'll have a team full of players who never do either, right?

Either that or too few players to field a team.

 

[A55VA6]

Fisher, Williams, and Snead need to stay. With Schotty, he needs to stay if Bradford is returning as the starter. Coming off the 2 ACL's and having a new OC would put him in a terrible situation.

 

[Memphis Ram]

Okay...and we've might have been 9-7 without the Cook drop against Dallas and Hill's terrible INT against SD. We might have been 10-6 if you add in Davis hitting the open Givens rather than throwing a pick against Arizona.(if we beat Seattle)

Easy to play that game with a team that played a lot of close games.

Oh please. No one is playing any games. This team could very well have been 5-11 after tomorrow, too.

 

[jrry32]

Oh please. No one is playing any games. This team could very well have been 5-11 after tomorrow, too.

Really? Because I could have sworn this team already has 6 wins.

This team could very well be 10-6 after tomorrow.

But they aren't and won't be.

So yes, that is playing the "what if" game.

 

[den-the-coach]

Bridgewater would have made a difference in a few of our games.

Here are a few other things worth pointing out with Bridgewater:
1. He's been pressured on 40% of his dropbacks(4th worst in the NFL)
2. His accuracy% under pressure is 73.5%(best in the NFL)
3. Bridgewater is #6 in the NFL with an accuracy% of 76.1% this year

My only issue with this analyses is that Bridgewarter's offense is being coordinated by Norv Turner if he was with the Rams his offense would be coordinated by Brian Shottenheimer and IMO although I believe he'd be a better option he would not have enjoyed as much success in the latter part of the season.

 

[SaneRamsFan]

Changing front office scares me a lot more than changing players. And you can go back and forth all you want but the facts are without our starting quarterback, who I consider to be significantly better than a game manager, and without a qb in place who could step in and perform at a level that at least didn't hurt the team, our defense was consistent enough and our offense was good enough to win six or possibly seven games. Yes you are what your record says you are. So to me it's imperative that we improve both sides of the ball and the qb position in particular if we expect this regime to be around anything more than the five years. Obviously the defense is closer but their decisions on how to use their available assets to improve the record in 2015 will most likely determine their fate moving forward.

 

[jrry32]

My only issue with this analyses is that Bridgewarter's offense is being coordinated by Norv Turner if he was with the Rams his offense would be coordinated by Brian Shottenheimer and IMO although I believe he'd be a better option he would not have enjoyed as much success in the latter part of the season.

While true, keep in mind that Turner and Schotty both run Air Coryell offenses. And if Bridgewater was on the Rams, he'd have better weapons.

Plus, Schotty's system is somewhat stylistically similar to the system Bridgewater ran in college...although Bridgewater's college offense was a WCO variant.

I think he'd be doing well in our system. It fits him well. Although his YPA might take a hit.

 

[jrry32]

Changing front office scares me a lot more than changing players. And you can go back and forth all you want but the facts are without our starting quarterback, who I consider to be significantly better than a game manager, and without a qb in place who could step in and perform at a level that at least didn't hurt the team, our defense was consistent enough and our offense was good enough to win six or possibly seven games. Yes you are what your record says you are. So to me it's imperative that we improve both sides of the ball and the qb position in particular if we expect this regime to be around anything more than the five years. Obviously the defense is closer but their decisions on how to use their available assets to improve the record in 2015 will most likely determine their fate moving forward.

IMO, we're fine on the defensive side of the ball. Just add some depth and we're good to go. We should be putting the majority of our resources into the offense this off-season.

 

[Athos]

I think he'd be doing well in our system. It fits him well. Although his YPA might take a hit.

Really? I think Bridgewater could push it downfield more than Hill/Davis with better accuracy. I think Britt would become more of a threat and Cook would be dangerous.

Thing with Teddy it seems, is that his ability to operate under the pass rush translated from college. Hell, it actually is about the same from college if I recall. 70ish%.

 

[Mojo Ram]

I think he'd be doing well in our system.

Of course you do

 

[jrry32]

Really? I think Bridgewater could push it downfield more than Hill/Davis with better accuracy. I think Britt would become more of a threat and Cook would be dangerous.

Thing with Teddy it seems, is that his ability to operate under the pass rush translated from college. Hell, it actually is about the same from college if I recall. 70ish%.

Bridgewater isn't an accurate deep thrower. It's probably his biggest weakness.

Cook would do well with him, though. Because he can hit those intermediate and seam throws.