Change to Nick Foles Gives Rams Average Offseason Grade/Wagoner

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #2
Quarterback change to Nick Foles gives Rams average offseason grade
By Nick Wagoner

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/pos...nick-foles-gives-rams-average-offseason-grade

With offseason workouts and minicamps in the rearview mirror and training camps only a few weeks away, we assess the St. Louis Rams' offseason moves and assign a letter grade in the video above.

Best move: Trading quarterback Sam Bradford for quarterback Nick Foles and draft picks. Despite two consecutive season-ending knee injuries, the Rams seemed as if they were going to again bet big on Bradford. But they finally cut ties when the Eagles came calling with both a replacement at quarterback and a second-round choice in 2016. With the trade, the Rams freed up about $13 million in salary-cap space. They also gave themselves a chance to finally build the run-oriented offense coach Jeff Fisher has long said he wanted. Whether they want to admit it, the presence of a high-priced, former No. 1 overall pick at quarterback doesn't make it easy to center the offense on a power running game. Foles gives the Rams a healthier option who should be able to do what the Rams want at a fraction of the cost of Bradford. He counts only $1.542 million against the cap in 2015.

Riskiest move: Relying solely on the draft and in-house candidates to fix a broken offensive line. In 2014, the Rams gave up sacks on 8.3 percent of their dropbacks and pressure on 33.1 percent of their dropbacks, ranking 25th and 30th, in those categories. So how did they go about fixing that offensive line? They passed on all veteran options and bet big on the NFL draft. They drafted four offensive linemen, including projected starters in second-round tackle Rob Havenstein and third-round guard Jamon Brown. At center, they are hoping that one of three in-house options -- Barrett Jones, Tim Barnes or Demetrius Rhaney -- proves capable of handling the job. Add those unproven pieces to a still developing left tackle in Greg Robinson and injury-prone guard Rodger Saffold and you have question marks all over the group. Line coach Paul Boudreau shouldn't be underestimated; he has made it work with questionable units in the past, but this might be his toughest task yet.

Fresh ideas on offense: For the first three years of the Fisher regime, the offense remained status quo in almost every area, especially the coaching staff. The results were predictably similar as well, as the Rams finished 23rd, 30th and 28th in yards per game and 25th, 21st and 21st in points per game. The lack of consistent offensive productivity put undue pressure on the defense to carry the load from week to week. But when coordinator Brian Schottenheimer departed for the same job at the University of Georgia in January, it opened the door for the Rams to finally bring in some new blood. After promoting in-house to replace Schottenheimer with quarterbacks coach Frank Cignetti Jr., Fisher went outside the family to hire former NFL quarterbacks Chris Weinke and Jeff Garcia as quarterbacks coach and offensive assistant. It's unfair to expect Weinke and/or Garcia to be offensive saviors but adding some new ideas to the mix should be good for an offense that has lacked imagination.

Training camp outlook: The Rams' defense looks as if it could be ready to finally take the next step forward and become a dominant group. But so much of the team's potential is rooted in the development of an offense with no shortage of unknowns. Training camp will be a pivotal time as Foles must adapt to a new scheme, the offensive line must find cohesion and Cignetti must bring it all together. If the Rams are to finally improve from mediocrity to being contenders, the onus is on the offense.
 

nighttrain

Legend
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
9,216
don't have to worry about Foles getting sacked in a run oriented offence, hand offs don't take that long
train
 

Robocop

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
1,933
Name
J.
just get the fuck outa here Wagoner, he hates the Rams and is dull and boring and reports on old news scoops days after someone else has written it or been posted here. go find another team to annoy Wagoner. how about the Skins
 

Rmfnlt

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
5,342
I dunno... a "B-" probably equates to a record of 9-7 or so?

I think there were a lot of members here in a recent poll that picked the final record as 9-7, no?
 

LACHAMP46

A snazzy title
Joined
Jul 21, 2013
Messages
11,735
Riskiest move: Relying solely on the draft and in-house candidates to fix a broken offensive line. In 2014, the Rams gave up sacks on 8.3 percent of their dropbacks and pressure on 33.1 percent of their dropbacks, ranking 25th and 30th, in those categories. So how did they go about fixing that offensive line? They passed on all veteran options and bet big on the NFL draft. They drafted four offensive linemen, including projected starters in second-round tackle Rob Havenstein and third-round guard Jamon Brown. At center, they are hoping that one of three in-house options -- Barrett Jones, Tim Barnes or Demetrius Rhaney -- proves capable of handling the job. Add those unproven pieces to a still developing left tackle in Greg Robinson and injury-prone guard Rodger Saffold and you have question marks all over the group. Line coach Paul Boudreau shouldn't be underestimated; he has made it work with questionable units in the past, but this might be his toughest task yet.
Best thing we've done since 1998....draft some O-Line help for the offense....Geez, it's not rocket-science people.....
 

Akrasian

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
4,935
Given how much complaining has gone on about the Rams not signing much vet help for the OL, I'm surprised people are upset over a B- evaluation. Figure A's should be rare anyway. The Rams drafted a potentially great RB - one of their deepest positions, and also a guy with health issues. I like the pick, but there is risk and redundancy, which should lower the grade a little. And there is a gamble in the OL youth movement. I probably would have gone with a B grade, all things considered, maybe a B+ if I really liked Foles more. I'm not going to be traumatized by a B- though
 

Stranger

How big is infinity?
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
7,182
Name
Hugh
Maybe it's time to start grading the local sports coverage? What grade would you give the Rams media pool?
 

jjab360

Legend
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
6,744
just get the freak outa here Wagoner, he hates the Rams and is dull and boring and reports on old news scoops days after someone else has written it or been posted here. go find another team to annoy Wagoner. how about the Skins
Haven't read the article, but that's not the vibe I've gotten from Wagoner at all. He was pretty good when writing for the Rams official website and worlds better than Mike Sando or any of the PD columnists.
 

Boston Ram

Hall of Fame
Joined
Mar 1, 2013
Messages
3,585
I always find if funny to give offseason grades. How do you grade an offseason with guys all coming into a new system. It would seem to make more sense to give the grade after the next season is completed. I know its all done in fun, but sometimes it feels like these writers are pounding the desk, say they should of done this or that.
 

bskrilla

Starter
Joined
Aug 6, 2013
Messages
741
Haven't read the article, but that's not the vibe I've gotten from Wagoner at all. He was pretty good when writing for the Rams official website and worlds better than Mike Sando or any of the PD columnists.

He used to be better. He seems to have turned sour over the past couple years for some reason. His articles have been progressively more negative ever since the Ram's didn't draft Sammy Watkins last year.
 

Merlin

Damn the torpedoes
Rams On Demand Sponsor
ROD Credit | 2023 TOP Member
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
39,683
Given how much complaining has gone on about the Rams not signing much vet help for the OL, I'm surprised people are upset over a B- evaluation. Figure A's should be rare anyway. The Rams drafted a potentially great RB - one of their deepest positions, and also a guy with health issues. I like the pick, but there is risk and redundancy, which should lower the grade a little. And there is a gamble in the OL youth movement. I probably would have gone with a B grade, all things considered, maybe a B+ if I really liked Foles more. I'm not going to be traumatized by a B- though

Yeah I see it similarly. B- is pretty fair tbh and that is even though I am an offseason Kool-Aid drinker extraordinaire.

The good thing here is that Coach Boudreau finally has TALENT to work with on the OL. This will be the first time we can say that really, as he has made it work with some subpar pieces and pretty good results considering.

I like to see things all sort of coming together and it really seems like that can happen for us this season. Cigs is loading up a passing game that should stretch the defenses horizontally as well as vertically, the running game should be respectable and provide balance, and Foles is solid at the least. So add Coach Bou and that young OL and I am more optimistic than I probably should be. For some reason I am just not worried about that line and hopefully it's not a sugar buzz lol.
 

Rmfnlt

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
5,342
He used to be better. He seems to have turned sour over the past couple years for some reason. His articles have been progressively more negative ever since the Ram's didn't draft Sammy Watkins last year.
7-8-1
7-9
6-10
Maybe?
 

bskrilla

Starter
Joined
Aug 6, 2013
Messages
741
7-8-1
7-9
6-10
Maybe?

He's been covering the team since 2004. He saw the worst of the worst and wasn't nearly as negative as he has been over the last 2 years or so.

I'm sure part of it is since he's no longer on the Rams payroll he gets to say whatever he wants. Not to mention controversy sells on ESPN.
 

gabriel18

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
May 1, 2015
Messages
5,076
So a QB that hasn't played a down in about 2 years is better than Foles ? I don't think so.... Anybody is better than a guy that can't get on the field .
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,766
Without the acquisition of Foles and Ayers I'd have assigned a grade of C-. With those two additions a B- seems fair to me. That must mean that I hate the Rams and I've given up on them right. ;)

Let's ignore the fact that Gurley is recovering from a knee injury and may never be the player he was before the injury and let's pay no attention the math that says he has a much greater than normal chance of suffering another knee injury in the future. Let's also ignore the fact that all our O-lines draft picks might have been picked higher than their talent level warranted. Furthermore, let's ignore the fact that we have really really crappy backup plans for any injuries at LT and the depth at the other G and T positions suck too. Furthermore, let's ignore the fact that we have no proven options at C and that we didn't even try to lock in the only player with any experience at OC who many think will win the job. What I can't ignore is the math concerning our draft picks. Ignoring all that math isn't possible for me. Doesn't mean we can't beat the odds though.

Havenstein - approximately 33% chance of being a total bust and an even greater chance of being only a marginal starter.
Brown - approximately 40% chance of being a total bust and an even greater chance of being only a marginal starter.
Donnal - approximately 50% chance of being a total bust and an even greater chance of being only a marginal starter.
Wichmann - approximately 80-90% chance of being a bust and an even greater chance of being only a marginal starter.

http://datascopeanalytics.com/blog/the-chance-of-a-bust-in-the-nfl-draft/
The chance of a bust in the NFL draft
May 1, 2012

With the 2012 NFL draft officially complete, the fans of every NFL franchise are dissecting their teams draft picks looking for hidden gems and potential busts. Intuitively, early picks in the draft have a much higher propensity to succeed in the NFL as we showed last week. What about the chance that a pick will be a bust? It’s been well covered that, out of the four times in NFL draft history a QB has been chosen 1 and 2, only once have both QBs been successful (1971: Jim Plunkett and Archie Manning). We decided to expand the search and look at all picks over the last 50 years and determine the average chance an NFL draft pick will be a bust.

What is a “bust?” We'll look at it two different ways. First, a bust is a player that ends up with a value score of less than 5 according to pro-football-reference.com. A value of less than 5 is equivalent to a marginal role player that has limited game experience and contributes little to no value to an NFL franchise. Here it is in a visual:
image00.png


You can see from about round 6 (pick 160) and later, the percent chance of failing on a draft pick is over 70%. With such a low hit rate, NFL teams should focus their decision making on players that fit their current schema and can be a strong contributor on special teams.


Now, with early round picks, the expectation is a lot higher than just contributing on the field. With a first or second round pick, an NFL team is expecting a player that can come in, start, and contribute for years to come. With that in mind, our second method for setting the bar for a “bust” is that the player starts for less than one year or plays less than 40 games in their career. Here's the same visual with the different way of measuring busts:


image01.png



A couple of interesting notes from the graph. First, picking at the end of the second round only gives your team a 50% chance of finding a starter. Going towards the end of the round 3, your chance of finding a starter falls to ~30%. Using this criteria and ourdraft value chart from last week, let’s evaluate a couple of the trades from Friday.

  • The Browns trading out of pick 67 to the Broncos for picks 87 and 120. The Browns increased their chance of getting a starter from 41% to 49%. On a pick value basis, the Browns increased their pick value from 259 to 299. All in all a fairly even trade for both sides but I give the edge to the Browns.
  • What about the Cowboys and Rams trade in the first round? The Cowboys traded away picks 14 and 45 for the 6th pick in the draft from the Rams. From a “starter” perspective, the Cowboys decreased their chance of picking a starter from 88% to 85%. From a pick value perspective, the Cowboys decreased their value from 1141 to 779. From a stat point of view, looks like the Rams got the better of the deal but once again a fairly even trade.
    Another interesting note, in the later rounds, an NFL team has a really slim chance of finding the next Tom Brady in round 6 or Donald Driver in round 7. The data shows that finding a starter in round 6 or 7 is only 10 - 20%. Further strengthening the argument to search for players that are effective on special teams in later rounds. Finally, see pick 148 on the graph (highlighted in blue). In the past 50 years, only two players picked 148 have started more than one year and played in at least 40 games. Best of luck to Chris Greenwood of the Detroit Lions, the 148th selection of the 2012 draft. According to the data, you are the true Mr. Irrelevant.
 
Last edited: