- Joined
- Aug 3, 2013
- Messages
- 4,549
A 9-7 season sucks. I know.....did I just say that? But it's where we are now with Sean McVay at the helm. We expect better. And all the pundits, experts and most fans believe it was our offense that let us down, particularly the offensive line. While that is true and a commonly accepted conclusion, there are reasons for that. For one, inexperience. Second, injuries. I won't belabor the details as we are all well aware of them. Even on a veteran offensive line, continuity is the key, so it's plausible to point to the injuries as the most devastating factor. At the same time, most fans who follow the team closely will admit the defense was absolutely horrific at times and certainly deserve their share of the blame.
But how bad was the offense? I can split the season into 3 parts. Some will call it cherry picking but lets look at the facts. We had a healthy, albeit, inexperienced offensive line for the first 5 games. We went 3-2 with our two losses coming on the first horrific defensive performance and a missed FG as time expired. It's a fact the run game rarely produced good numbers averaging 3.6 yards per carry in those 5 games. But overall, the offense averaged 413 yards per game and 28 points per game.
The number 1 offense in the league averaged 431 yds/game and the number 2 offense 408. So that 413 would have been good enough for #2. The Ravens, who led the league with 58 offensive touchdowns, averaged 30 PPG. San Francisco scored 51 offensive touchdowns (#2) and their offense averaged 27.9 PPG. Clearly, those 28 PPG was adequate offensive production. Disregarding the record, some might say "excellent production". And the fact the Rams did that averaging just 3.6 yards per carry on the ground is a testament to their passing game. They had 55 possessions over that span and scored on 27 of them. They had 12 three and outs, with 4 of those a result of an interception or fumble. They gave up just 5 sacks on third down. And they were 1 missed field goal away from 4-1. The one abhorrent defensive showing against Tampa Bay could have been almost laughed off had we won the first Seattle game (as we clearly should have).
The middle six games of the year the offensive line was influx. Noteboom dropped on the 2nd possession against SF and Allen went down on the first possession of the second half vs. Pittsburgh and by game's end, Havenstein was on the sideline, never to play in another game. They mixed and matched, trying to produce a productive offensive line and develop continuity and the numbers show they were unsuccessful. They used 3 different OL combinations over those 6 games and averaged just 293 yards and 14.5 points per game.
Over those 6 games, the defense played well. They allowed just 12 TDs and 6 field goals (17 PPG), while scoring 9 points themselves (a net of 15.5 PPG). Opponents missed 4 other field goal attempts. But we could only manage 3 wins and that could be blamed squarely on the offense because if you take away the Baltimore game, the defense allowed 11 PPG in the other 5 games. A McVay offense will go 5-0 ninety-nine times out of a hundred under those circumstances.
The last 5 games, the offense scored 27 PPG and rolled up 422 yards per game. The offensive line was the same for the last 7 games so I'd think, after 2 games together they started to gel a bit. Still the rushing numbers were low and many will point to that, as well as the competition, but you can't deny the yardage and points per game. Again, the defense had one of those inexcusable stinkers against Dallas. But it's the NFL and every team gets paid to play.
Clearly, the rushing numbers rarely raised eyebrows throughout the season but the offensive production.....yards per game and points per game.....were there in the first 5 and last 5 games, with rare exception (Dallas). So did they improve? Were they really that bad early on? I think the sting of a 9-7 non-playoff season might dull the sensibility of our evaluations on those two subjects. The offense was inconsistent all year, unproductive at times but most of that can be blamed on OL continuity and experience. And that has to get fixed, as we'd all agree. But just how far away they are, with who they have is debatable. We shall soon see what they think about it, knowing their players and reviewing the films.
Am I trying to say "this (OL injuries) was the reason we went 9-7"? No. There were many factors including OL, defense, special teams, playcalling and sometimes flat out brain cramps. But that's what happens in an off year. Sometimes it's a bad offensive performance. Sometimes it's a bad defensive performance. Sometimes the special teams let you down. Still other times it's as stupid as running Gerald Everett on a 3rd and 5 jet sweep. Things just don't go right. But, injuries and lack of contiunity make it impossible to recover from inconsistency. I think this was just a speed bump that slowed the Rams down a bit and they will make the necessary corrections (some of which may have already happened) and resume their assault on the other NFL teams. 2019 was a TOTAL team effort, that resulted in much less success than anybody anticipated going into the season. And still we were 9-7. 9-7. Not 7-9 or 6-10 or 4-12. 9-7. But missing the playoffs sucks (and aren't we well aware of that fact?). I'll submit, teams don't suffer a Superbowl hangover. Fans do.
But how bad was the offense? I can split the season into 3 parts. Some will call it cherry picking but lets look at the facts. We had a healthy, albeit, inexperienced offensive line for the first 5 games. We went 3-2 with our two losses coming on the first horrific defensive performance and a missed FG as time expired. It's a fact the run game rarely produced good numbers averaging 3.6 yards per carry in those 5 games. But overall, the offense averaged 413 yards per game and 28 points per game.
The number 1 offense in the league averaged 431 yds/game and the number 2 offense 408. So that 413 would have been good enough for #2. The Ravens, who led the league with 58 offensive touchdowns, averaged 30 PPG. San Francisco scored 51 offensive touchdowns (#2) and their offense averaged 27.9 PPG. Clearly, those 28 PPG was adequate offensive production. Disregarding the record, some might say "excellent production". And the fact the Rams did that averaging just 3.6 yards per carry on the ground is a testament to their passing game. They had 55 possessions over that span and scored on 27 of them. They had 12 three and outs, with 4 of those a result of an interception or fumble. They gave up just 5 sacks on third down. And they were 1 missed field goal away from 4-1. The one abhorrent defensive showing against Tampa Bay could have been almost laughed off had we won the first Seattle game (as we clearly should have).
The middle six games of the year the offensive line was influx. Noteboom dropped on the 2nd possession against SF and Allen went down on the first possession of the second half vs. Pittsburgh and by game's end, Havenstein was on the sideline, never to play in another game. They mixed and matched, trying to produce a productive offensive line and develop continuity and the numbers show they were unsuccessful. They used 3 different OL combinations over those 6 games and averaged just 293 yards and 14.5 points per game.
Over those 6 games, the defense played well. They allowed just 12 TDs and 6 field goals (17 PPG), while scoring 9 points themselves (a net of 15.5 PPG). Opponents missed 4 other field goal attempts. But we could only manage 3 wins and that could be blamed squarely on the offense because if you take away the Baltimore game, the defense allowed 11 PPG in the other 5 games. A McVay offense will go 5-0 ninety-nine times out of a hundred under those circumstances.
The last 5 games, the offense scored 27 PPG and rolled up 422 yards per game. The offensive line was the same for the last 7 games so I'd think, after 2 games together they started to gel a bit. Still the rushing numbers were low and many will point to that, as well as the competition, but you can't deny the yardage and points per game. Again, the defense had one of those inexcusable stinkers against Dallas. But it's the NFL and every team gets paid to play.
Clearly, the rushing numbers rarely raised eyebrows throughout the season but the offensive production.....yards per game and points per game.....were there in the first 5 and last 5 games, with rare exception (Dallas). So did they improve? Were they really that bad early on? I think the sting of a 9-7 non-playoff season might dull the sensibility of our evaluations on those two subjects. The offense was inconsistent all year, unproductive at times but most of that can be blamed on OL continuity and experience. And that has to get fixed, as we'd all agree. But just how far away they are, with who they have is debatable. We shall soon see what they think about it, knowing their players and reviewing the films.
Am I trying to say "this (OL injuries) was the reason we went 9-7"? No. There were many factors including OL, defense, special teams, playcalling and sometimes flat out brain cramps. But that's what happens in an off year. Sometimes it's a bad offensive performance. Sometimes it's a bad defensive performance. Sometimes the special teams let you down. Still other times it's as stupid as running Gerald Everett on a 3rd and 5 jet sweep. Things just don't go right. But, injuries and lack of contiunity make it impossible to recover from inconsistency. I think this was just a speed bump that slowed the Rams down a bit and they will make the necessary corrections (some of which may have already happened) and resume their assault on the other NFL teams. 2019 was a TOTAL team effort, that resulted in much less success than anybody anticipated going into the season. And still we were 9-7. 9-7. Not 7-9 or 6-10 or 4-12. 9-7. But missing the playoffs sucks (and aren't we well aware of that fact?). I'll submit, teams don't suffer a Superbowl hangover. Fans do.
