Fisher: 'We're closing the gap'

[CoachO]

That all sounds good and reasonable except for these four things:
A) I believe that we started out the season with all of our starters playing.
- they did have their "starters" in the beginning of the season. McDonald (rookie) McLeod (1st year starter) Jenkins (2nd year) Finnegan (nuf said) and Johnson (2nd year with basically half a season on real playing time under his belt)
B) The fact that we're going up against a great WR is a pitiful excuse. Almost every team has a great/bonified #1 WR.
- doesn't change the fact that EARLY in the season, they were facing quality WRs with a still young and inexperienced secondary
C) How are they supposed to learn their assignments" Osmosis? They need to play man in games and learn from their mistakes. They had many weeks to practice man coverage in TC and what they lacked was real game experience.
- pre CBA training camps consisted of 37-38 practices, Fisher commented on this DURING camp. This year they had 22 practices before the season started.
D) The coverage they were using in lieu of man coverage wasn't working. At all. It was pathetic. Did I mention how pathetic it was? Did I mention that every single person who wrote about it saw and said the same thing?
- how did that man coverage work against J. Jones on the deciding 82 yard TD pass, when Finnegan got beat off the LOS and there was no one in the middle of the field to make the play?

Your definition and mine are obviously different as to what constitutes "pathetic". I would much rather minimize the BIG PLAYS (se above) and force teams to methodically move the ball, and then tighten up in the Red Zone, which is exactly how this team played. They were among the BET RZ defenses throughout the season. And if you look at the overall numbers of "BIG PLAYS", they wre down significantly over past years. Even WITH the youth and inexperience.

Here's a saying I like quite a bit:
http://vuible.com/pin/dont-make-exc...put-flowers-in-an-asshole-and-call-it-a-vase/
Don’t make excuses for him. You can’t put flowers in an asshole and call it a vase.:heh:

But like I said, I'm not asking for anyones head on a pike but if the same thing happens in 2014 it will be a different story.

 

[Zaphod]

Tavon is not a pure WR, he is multi purpose big play threat, but not an every down WR that can play on the outside. That was supposed to be Quick or maybe Givens. But that ain't happening.

I don't disagree with the assessment of Tavon being a multi-purpose threat, but I really do think that just because of his speed and cutting he could be one of the best route runners that forces teams to respect him regardless of where he lines up. Forget his size, he's the kind of player that the QB gets an early read on whether he'll be open or not perhaps even before the ball is snapped, and that's why I think for him to reach his maximum potential in that regard he'll be able to run X, Y and Z routes, which this team will continue to work on in his second year.

Then you just have to consider Cook. So long as the Rams have both Cook and Kendricks there will be more multiple tight end sets. Add Harkey as a FB and you see some plays with just one WR. But mostly a lot of two WR sets when you take the running game into consideration.

Still, just accounting for when you do play a 3 WR set with TA playing to his current strength in the slot, I think they can still easily count on Bailey on the outside giving them the option of Givens, Pettis and Quick for the 3rd WR, each with their different strengths.

To implement this offense, they really do have the tools at WR, and I'm not even sure it would make sense for them to go after a free agent because I see both Tavon and Bailey improving steadily next year. I see Givens working better as a deep threat with Bradford throwing. And I see Quick used a lot more as well.

 

[max]

Can we please stop with the WR1 labels? He doesn't have to be, nor does Bailey or Austin. All they have to be is productive STARTERS. Someone please tell me who the WR1 was on the Rams of 1999. Or who the WR1 is on the current Green Bay Packers.

The only labels that concern me ... who is the "X" who is the "Z" in this offense?

Forget the labels. Let's keep it at productive starters.

Has Quick given a reasonable indication that he will be a productive starter in 2014? I haven't seen it. And neither has Holt and he has said as much.

I guess we can roll the dice and not add a high probability productive starter WR in 2014. But that sound like a bad idea to me.

I think when you have the opportunity to add a guy like Watkins to your team you should do it.

 

[CoachO]

Bruuuuce.

Really? and yet it was Holt who seemed to be the guy with the better numbers as their careers developed. I would agree to disagree and merely say, they were both equally as vital to the success of that offense.

 

[max]

Really? and yet it was Holt who seemed to be the guy with the better numbers as their careers developed. I would agree to disagree and merely say, they were both equally as vital to the success of that offense.

I think it was a common belief that Bruce was the WR1 in 1999 but Holt eventually took that roll by 2001. Holt has only 800 yds as a rookie in 1999. He was still learning from Bruce. I'm sure you remember the important Niner game when Bruce scored 4 TDs. Bruce was the man in 1999.

 

[EastRam]

Really? and yet it was Holt who seemed to be the guy with the better numbers as their careers developed. I would agree to disagree and merely say, they were both equally as vital to the success of that offense.

Yup we agree to disagree. You were referring to 99.

 

[Zaphod]

Can we please stop with the WR1 labels? He doesn't have to be, nor does Bailey or Austin. All they have to be is productive STARTERS. Someone please tell me who the WR1 was on the Rams of 1999. Or who the WR1 is on the current Green Bay Packers.

The only labels that concern me ... who is the "X" who is the "Z" in this offense?

This right here defines it for me exactly. Who is the X, Y and Z, and how many formations use all three with a fullback or a 2 TE set or a for that matter twoTE and a FB?

No matter what there's no way Schottenheimer doesn't continue to beat teams with match ups and not just one super hero playing at Z. They pretty much committed to that with the money spent on the Cook signing I think.

 

[Alan]

Holt had better numbers because they had to limit Bruce's snaps because of his groin issues. Bruce was the better WR IMO.

 

[CoachO]

Forget the labels. Let's keep it at productive starters.

Has Quick given a reasonable indication that he will be a productive starter in 2014? I haven't seen it. And neither has Holt and he has said as much.

I guess we can roll the dice and not add a high probability productive starter WR in 2014. But that sound like a bad idea to me.

I think when you have the opportunity to add a guy like Watkins to your team you should do it.

All I have been saying, is you cant fairly evaluate this WR corp, which includes Quick based off what happened in the last 9 weeks of the season.

I am not a STAT guy when I look at who is developing and how they are performing. I watch Quick run free on a weekly basis as he has gotten more regular reps, only to have Clemens completely avoid throwing him the ball. For me, that is more about Clemens lacking the confidence in his own ability to complete the intermediate-deep crossing routes, or the sideline fade (9) route that they had Quick running most of the time.

I also saw the playmaking ability in the Carolina game, (yes I know he dropped a perfectly thrown TD pass), when he got behind the secondary TWICE, and made another catch on that deep dig from Bradford prior to his injury. I have also seen his potential when they throw him the fade in the RZ. HE has made highlight type catches on a couple on occasions.

Look, I get the skepticism towards him. But for me, has shown that the ability is there. More than any other WR on the roster. Does he need to be more consistent? Of course. But consistency only comes with opportunity. C. Johnson drops passes every week. AJ Green the same. The difference is, they get targeted 15 times a game so their big play opportunities makes those "drops", or mistakes easy to over look.

And please, I am not insinuating that Brian Quick is comparable to Megatron or AJ Green. But he has the athletic skillset to be very good for this team, regardless of what his STATS up til now might say.

 

[CoachO]

Yup we agree to disagree. You were referring to 99.

Yes, I guess I was,, and now I'm sorry I brought it up. wasn't intending on derailing this thread to talk about Bruce/Holt

 

[max]

All I have been saying, is you cant fairly evaluate this WR corp, which includes Quick based off what happened in the last 9 weeks of the season.

I am not a STAT guy when I look at who is developing and how they are performing. I watch Quick run free on a weekly basis as he has gotten more regular reps, only to have Clemens completely avoid throwing him the ball. For me, that is more about Clemens lacking the confidence in his own ability to complete the intermediate-deep crossing routes, or the sideline fade (9) route that they had Quick running most of the time.

I also saw the playmaking ability in the Carolina game, (yes I know he dropped a perfectly thrown TD pass), when he got behind the secondary TWICE, and made another catch on that deep dig from Bradford prior to his injury. I have also seen his potential when they throw him the fade in the RZ. HE has made highlight type catches on a couple on occasions.

Look, I get the skepticism towards him. But for me, has shown that the ability is there. More than any other WR on the roster. Does he need to be more consistent? Of course. But consistency only comes with opportunity. C. Johnson drops passes every week. AJ Green the same. The difference is, they get targeted 15 times a game so their big play opportunities makes those "drops", or mistakes easy to over look.

And please, I am not insinuating that Brian Quick is comparable to Megatron or AJ Green. But he has the athletic skillset to be very good for this team, regardless of what his STATS up til now might say.

Coach, I respect your football acumen. But based on my own eyes, and what I hear from guys like Holt, Savard, and Tyoka Jackson, I think we cannot depend on Quick as a starting WR. I was talking to Dan Shonka the old scout from OURLADs a week ago and he told me Quick is not good enough to start, he is a #5 WR at this point and maybe forever.

I guess you disagree with Holt and the others. That's fine. We'll see what Fisher and Snead think soon enough.

 

[Alan]

CoachO responding:
- they did have their "starters" in the beginning of the season. McDonald (rookie) McLeod (1st year starter) Jenkins (2nd year) Finnegan (nuf said) and Johnson (2nd year with basically half a season on real playing time under his belt)

So your points dealing with injuries aren't pertinent.

- doesn't change the fact that EARLY in the season, they were facing quality WRs with a still young and inexperienced secondary

Which is exactly why they should have been getting experience playing man coverage.

- pre CBA training camps consisted of 37-38 practices, Fisher commented on this DURING camp. This year they had 22 practices before the season started.

So 22 practices is equivalent to how many games with a personal trainer at your side?

- how did that man coverage work against J. Jones on the deciding 82 yard TD pass, when Finnegan got beat off the LOS and there was no one in the middle of the field to make the play?

How did any kind of coverage work on J. Jones in his other 15 games? :lol:

Your definition and mine are obviously different as to what constitutes "pathetic". I would much rather minimize the BIG PLAYS (se above) and force teams to methodically move the ball, and then tighten up in the Red Zone, which is exactly how this team played. They were among the BET RZ defenses throughout the season. And if you look at the overall numbers of "BIG PLAYS", they wre down significantly over past years. Even WITH the youth and inexperience.

You say potato and I say easily march down the field into scoring position. No doubt about it Coach, when you play 10 yards off the LOS you're not going to give up many big plays. You're kind of making my point with the bolded part aren't you? We were so effective because we didn't have room to play 10 yards off the LOS.:wink:

I'll just finish by saying that I hope we won't be having a similar conversation next year at this time.

 

[CoachO]

CoachO responding:
- they did have their "starters" in the beginning of the season. McDonald (rookie) McLeod (1st year starter) Jenkins (2nd year) Finnegan (nuf said) and Johnson (2nd year with basically half a season on real playing time under his belt)

So your points dealing with injuries aren't pertinent.

- doesn't change the fact that EARLY in the season, they were facing quality WRs with a still young and inexperienced secondary

Which is exactly why they should have been getting experience playing man coverage.

- pre CBA training camps consisted of 37-38 practices, Fisher commented on this DURING camp. This year they had 22 practices before the season started.

So 22 practices is equivalent to how many games with a personal trainer at your side?

- how did that man coverage work against J. Jones on the deciding 82 yard TD pass, when Finnegan got beat off the LOS and there was no one in the middle of the field to make the play?

How did any kind of coverage work on J. Jones in his other 15 games? :lol:

Your definition and mine are obviously different as to what constitutes "pathetic". I would much rather minimize the BIG PLAYS (se above) and force teams to methodically move the ball, and then tighten up in the Red Zone, which is exactly how this team played. They were among the BET RZ defenses throughout the season. And if you look at the overall numbers of "BIG PLAYS", they wre down significantly over past years. Even WITH the youth and inexperience.

You say potato and I say easily march down the field into scoring position. No doubt about it Coach, when you play 10 yards off the LOS you're not going to give up many big plays. You're kind of making my point with the bolded part aren't you? We were so effective because we didn't have room to play 10 yards off the LOS.:wink:

I'll just finish by saying that I hope we won't be having a similar conversation next year at this time.

Ok, you obviously have all the answers. And judging from your reply regarding 22 practices being equivalent to "how many game with a personal trainer", that tells me all I need to know about how much you really know.

You obviously are going to hold steadfast in your OPINION, so I wont even try to continue this discussion. You're convinced you are right. I'm not so convinced. So lets just leave it at that.

 

[CoachO]

Coach, I respect your football acumen. But based on my own eyes, and what I hear from guys like Holt, Savard, and Tyoka Jackson, I think we cannot depend on Quick as a starting WR. I was talking to Dan Shonka the old scout from OURLADs a week ago and he told me Quick is not good enough to start, he is a #5 WR at this point and maybe forever.

I guess you disagree with Holt and the others. That's fine. We'll see what Fisher and Snead think soon enough.

I have no issue with people wanting to find a better option at WR. I just don't think its as necessary as some. I just am skeptical that if they do in fact go that route, whomever they bring in won't have similar issues learning the system and we will be right back here second guessing why they cant find a game changer at the position.

It obviously just isn't that simple.

 

[Ram_of_Old]

I do think we are getting better. Sam going down was a huge setback, but Fisher and Snead are two of the best in the business. Barring an injury, we should be able to play with ANYONE next year and we should by vying for a playoff spot from day one. I feel good about the future, but next year will need to be a winning year....

 

[Alan]

CoachO taking umbrage:
Ok, you obviously have all the answers. And judging from your reply regarding 22 practices being equivalent to "how many game with a personal trainer", that tells me all I need to know about how much you really know.

You obviously are going to hold steadfast in your OPINION, so I wont even try to continue this discussion. You're convinced you are right. I'm not so convinced. So lets just leave it at that.

So your goal was to change my opinion? My goal was to talk about something interesting. We don't have to agree do we? You stop talking to someone who you don't convert? :wow:

I'm always willing to talk with you about this or any other subject. You always bring cogent thought to your side of the discussion and that's why I'm here. Just because your opinion is well thought out doesn't mean I'll buy it. But I will talk about it. Up to you Coach.

I hope your holidays have been great!

 

[CoachO]

So your goal was to change my opinion? My goal was to talk about something interesting. We don't have to agree do we? You stop talking to someone who you don't convert? :wow:

I'm always willing to talk with you about this or any other subject. You always bring cogent thought to your side of the discussion and that's why I'm here. Just because your opinion is well thought out doesn't mean I'll buy it. But I will talk about it. Up to you Coach.

I hope your holidays have been great!

I just don't see the point in furthering a conversation that is so fundamentally far apart in what we think is a sound approach to the game plan. I realize it can be frustrating at times to sit and watch. But from where I sit, I understand WHY they are doing some of the things they are doing. We as fans sometimes, tend to overlook the impact of an inexperienced unit.

And when you make what I perceive to be a flippant comment about what they can or can't accomplish in 22 practices, it tells me you either don't understand how difficult it is to install a complex defense with a unit that has so many young players in key positions, or you just don't care to discuss it.

You come across like your opinion is the only one that counts here. So as I said, don't see where this is much of a discussion. You have your opinion, I have mine and we can agree to disagree.

 

[RFIP]

Can we please stop with the WR1 labels? He doesn't have to be, nor does Bailey or Austin. All they have to be is productive STARTERS. Someone please tell me who the WR1 was on the Rams of 1999. Or who the WR1 is on the current Green Bay Packers.

The only labels that concern me ... who is the "X" who is the "Z" in this offense?

Let me put it to you this way coach, how many teams does Chris Givens START on? Pettis? Quick?

No it may not be a matter of a true #1 but it is a matter of NFL talent.

 

[Alan]

CoachO still mad:
And when you make what I perceive to be a flippant comment

You come across like your opinion is the only one that counts here.

we can agree to disagree

You're taking my attempt to keep it light hearted as flippant. You'll find I do that all the time. In my mind, everything is better with a little humor.

As for your perception that I think my opinion is the only one that counts, counts for what? I'm just talking with another Ram fan in my mind.

Sure lets do that.

 

[CoachO]

Let me put it to you this way coach, how many teams does Chris Givens START on? Pettis? Quick?

No it may not be a matter of a true #1 but it is a matter of NFL talent.

Well, if you have read any of my previous posts, I think you already know my answer to that one. IMO, Brian Quick SHOULD be a starting WR in this league. The problem as I see it, what guys like Alshon Jeffrey have going for them, they have a proven and established counterpart who takes the pressure off of them when they come in. Even Julio Jones had Roddy White. Torrey Smith had Boldin, and so on. As I mentioned, and again, I don't want to turn this into another GSOT thread, but even Torry Holt had the luxury of being the 3rd option in that offense behind Bruce and Faulk.

With the guys we draft, they are automatically thrust into that "savior" role, and when they aren't able to live up to the expectations as quickly (no pun intended) as people think they should, then they are labeled "busts". Givens, I have already stated I have not been a big fan since training camp LAST YEAR. Pettis is a good possession receiver who has a place on any roster, but the point that he is starting is well made. Now, based on 2-3 catches a game, everyone seems to think that Bailey has arrived and is the heir apparent to being "the guy".

When it comes to drafting another WR, be it, Watkins, Evans etc. I just see them being thrust into that role of being "the guy" with not much to protect them. And that has "been there done that" written all over it for me.