IF the Rams win this week, and get to 7 wins......

[LesBaker]

It just seems to me that one of the Rams' biggest strengths would be to run many widely varying offensive plays with the same personnel sets. Preventing defenses from making personnel changes, stressing them, and producing mismatch opportunities. With TA on the field you can put him in motion and send him out wide, slot, backfield. Kendricks and/or Harkey can stay in and block or go out or both using 2 TE sets. Stacy.

I don't know, just seems to me you could put together some very imaginative plays and explosive drives using a hurry up. The Rams are already blowing up subpar defenses. Now they need to throw some cold water on the better ones.

Excellent point. Yeah there are some imaginative things that can be done with the players on the roster. One thing I think is there should be a lot of motion on every play that isn't third and one or right on the goal line.

Martz would use motion all the time to give his WRs a little edge and I don't know why with all the speed on the roster they aren't moving two guys on every play or taking TA from the backfield into the slot.

I'm hoping it was just the guys having to be fed the O a little at a time and that next year they will have this shit down cold lol.

 

[Ram Quixote]

In the last 7 games the only games we weren't competitive was against teams that excelled defensively against the run. Anybody think Bradford's presence in those 2 games would have made a difference? Not only that, but our last 3 wins have been impressive, beating teams that will/could make the playoffs. If we can run the ball, we have a chance to win the game. And that's without Bradford.

Compare that to last year, when most of our wins were squeakers.

 

[BigRamFan]

In the last 7 games the only games we weren't competitive was against teams that excelled defensively against the run. Anybody think Bradford's presence in those 2 games would have made a difference? Not only that, but our last 3 wins have been impressive, beating teams that will/could make the playoffs. If we can run the ball, we have a chance to win the game. And that's without Bradford.

Compare that to last year, when most of our wins were squeakers.

I think Bradford being in the game makes a world of difference. With KC at QB teams know all they need to do is stop the run. With Sam back, defenses will be forced to respect the pass and with play action based off of a strong run game I expect quite a bit more from this offense when he returns.

 

[RamzFanz]

would there still be people who claim this season is a "step backward" considering they lost their starting QB at the midway point of the season?

With all the expectations going into this season, which IMO, were unrealistic given the makeup of this ENTIRE roster, the overwhelming youth and inexperience of many of the skill positions.

Just wondering if people would see matching last year's win total would be enough to make people come to any conclusions, positive or negative?

For me, I have said since training camp this team is better than last years. But I wasn't sure it would translate into more wins.

A win this week will be great but a win in Seattle would silence just about everyone I think.

 

[Yamahopper]

Lots of good posts in this thread and this is one of the best.

When you lose your starter and have to play your backup the drop off is huge. And of course the kids have so little experience and that matters too. Even if they go 7-9 that's ok if they are executing better as individuals and playing better. The backup is going to lose games for you, that's just he way it s. But if plenty of other guys are looking good it bodes well for next season.

After coming off two straight weeks of double digit penalties for over 200 yards the fact that they only committed a few last week against the Saints is a plus and I'm going to be watching that closely once again to see if the sloppy play is getting itself worked out. To me that's going to be a good indicator.

I wasn't as happy with how the team played early in the season as I am now. I realize that inexperience on both sides of the ball hinders game planning. It just took the Rams awhile to find out what they can and can't do.
The team could have quit when Bradford went down but they didn't. They play hard every play. The team has a focus.

I thought 8 or 9 wins would be max this year, and with Bradford they would have had it even with how they played the first quarter of the season. It's easy to say with Stacy running the ball from game 1 they might have even more wins. But Was Stacy ready to run like that game 1? Or Bailey ready to play a major role.

There is lessons to be learned from this. And lets hope the players and coach see where this went wrong early on.

 

[Zaphod]

It's easy to say with Stacy running the ball from game 1 they might have even more wins. But Was Stacy ready to run like that game 1? Or Bailey ready to play a major role.

I think you can credit them using Harkey as a fullback and multiple tight end sets for the emergence of the run game.

 

[CoachO]

I'll speak for myself and my thoughts.

I thought the passing D was stronger than it was. That was huge. A strong secondary with that pass rush would have changed the entire season. People warned me about Finny but I didn't listen.

I knew what TA could do in space. I watched a ton of video on him. When the season started I was sorely disappointed that they thought all you had to do was get him the ball. Instead of fixing how they used TA, they reduced his playing time. Now they seem to be on the right track except in number of touches. This lack of insight into what he does so very very well and how much he could add to the offense every game was (and still is) a huge waste of talent.

I was counting on Givens to grow as a player and continue to be a deep threat. That was important for the run game and the coming out of TA.

I really thought Cookie had the skill sets to be an essential part of the passing game.

I didn't expect the Rams to run DR up the middle over and over for losses. I'm still confused as to why they didn't see the madness and try Stacy / Cunningham earlier in those situations.

I thought they would play a faster offense. I'm still hoping to see that next season. Sam is good at it.

Everything you are "hoping for" or thought would be what they would excel in, does NOT take into consideration how difficult it is to incorporate when the majority of the skill positions are so inexperienced. You say you watched a ton of tape of how Tavon dominated in COLLEGE. In a scheme he was comfortable in, and one that was tailored to HIM. (against defenses of that vaunted Big XII, i.e. Oklahoma)

I think the one thing that should jump out at you after seeing this season, especially the early part, is it just doesn't translate at this level as easily as people think it would.

So the young players were not the only ones who needed to get comfortable with the system, but the coaching staff needed to get comfortable with what they could get out of the players. When you are "installing" your offense and defense in OTAs and training camp, its about installing CONCEPTS. It's not about "drawing up plays" for certain players. That all comes later into the season, as they put in individual game plans for specific opponents. And even then, there may be ONE or TWO special things you do within the confines of the system per week.

You mention the timing of the decision of using Stacy rather than Richardson earlier. Easier said than done, IMO, when you have a player, who didn't take regular reps in training camp, was often "banged up" and missed significant practice time, to be "ready" by week one. The other thing that never gets discussed, and to me, played a huge part in the slow start, was the lack of actual practices teams are allowed to have due to the new CBA.

For a veteran team, who is just merely reviewing their schemes, and working on "timing" etc, it has little impact. But on a team with so many new pieces, and inexperienced ones at that, it is a major disadvantage. Fisher made reference to that at the time. In his days at Tennessee, a typical training camp would include 38-40 practices. This year, they had 22. TWENTY-TWO practices before week one vs. Arizona. and a grand total of FOUR full padded practices. This was not a "Fisher" issue, but a league wide issue.

 

[blackbart]

I've been curious and hae asked around but haven't really gotten an answer.

What made people think this team with the schedule it was facing and the kids all over the roster would win 11 or 12 games.....hell even 10 games?

I figured 9 would be the ceiling and if I was forced to wager I would have picked 8.

What made some of you have such high expectations coming into this season.

I thought after last year's defensive performance they would be a top 10 defense maybe even top 5
Bradford would have a career year and he was well on his way for that even with all the drops
That TA would be a huge boost in the special teams
And we would win all of our division games at home as well as road games in AZ and Seattle.

 

[RamzFanz]

Everything you are "hoping for" or thought would be what they would excel in, does NOT take into consideration how difficult it is to incorporate when the majority of the skill positions are so inexperienced. You say you watched a ton of tape of how Tavon dominated in COLLEGE. In a scheme he was comfortable in, and one that was tailored to HIM. (against defenses of that vaunted Big XII, i.e. Oklahoma)

I think the one thing that should jump out at you after seeing this season, especially the early part, is it just doesn't translate at this level as easily as people think it would.

So the young players were not the only ones who needed to get comfortable with the system, but the coaching staff needed to get comfortable with what they could get out of the players. When you are "installing" your offense and defense in OTAs and training camp, its about installing CONCEPTS. It's not about "drawing up plays" for certain players. That all comes later into the season, as they put in individual game plans for specific opponents. And even then, there may be ONE or TWO special things you do within the confines of the system per week.

You mention the timing of the decision of using Stacy rather than Richardson earlier. Easier said than done, IMO, when you have a player, who didn't take regular reps in training camp, was often "banged up" and missed significant practice time, to be "ready" by week one. The other thing that never gets discussed, and to me, played a huge part in the slow start, was the lack of actual practices teams are allowed to have due to the new CBA.

For a veteran team, who is just merely reviewing their schemes, and working on "timing" etc, it has little impact. But on a team with so many new pieces, and inexperienced ones at that, it is a major disadvantage. Fisher made reference to that at the time. In his days at Tennessee, a typical training camp would include 38-40 practices. This year, they had 22. TWENTY-TWO practices before week one vs. Arizona. and a grand total of FOUR full padded practices. This was not a "Fisher" issue, but a league wide issue.

All fair points.

I would say that TA plays exactly like college and the results are the same WHEN they get him the ball in the open field. It was pretty obvious and commented on often before the season and during the season by many many analysts and fans. The game they finally run a play that gets him in the open, against the Colts, explosions. The same goes for his return game. When it was no blocking and all penalties he sucked. As soon as they learned to legally block, lights out. It's not a coincidence. TA could have been doing this at some level from day one. They didn't use him intelligently and now they aren't using him near enough. Torry Holt has made all the same points in regards to TA. I'll stay on his side of this.

My point about DR wasn't that Stacy was the answer game one but that they ran DR up the middle with no regard to where he excelled. It was a nightmare. They should have run anyone up the middle other than DR (for the most part) even some UDFA. They should have been able to get DR the ball without running up the middle so much. I just hope they haven't ruined him for the NFL. He's very good at what he does well.

 

[CoachO]

All fair points.

I would say that TA plays exactly like college and the results are the same WHEN they get him the ball in the open field. It was pretty obvious and commented on often before the season and during the season by many many analysts and fans. The game they finally run a play that gets him in the open, against the Colts, explosions. The same goes for his return game. When it was no blocking and all penalties he sucked. As soon as they learned to legally block, lights out. It's not a coincidence. TA could have been doing this at some level from day one. They didn't use him intelligently and now they aren't using him near enough. Torry Holt has made all the same points in regards to TA. I'll stay on his side of this.

My point about DR wasn't that Stacy was the answer game one but that they ran DR up the middle with no regard to where he excelled. It was a nightmare. They should have run anyone up the middle other than DR (for the most part) even some UDFA. They should have been able to get DR the ball without running up the middle so much. I just hope they haven't ruined him for the NFL. He's very good at what he does well.

You do realize the success they had vs. Indianapolis was more about what Indy was doing in terms of coverage, than anything the Rams suddenly figured out about getting him "in space"? THE Colts to take the running game away, and in doing so, they chose to play man coverage almost exclusively. That's easy pickings with players like Austin. Even Givens was able to exploit that coverage on crossing routes. But you seem to think its as simple as saying we are going to get Austin the ball in space, regardless of what opponents do to take that away from them. So when you say that he "play exactly like college", while that may be the case, the opportunities are few and far between as compared to "in college". And how exactly, other than the 98 yard return in the Indy game,(that again, was more about what Indy didn't do to cover that kick) has Austin been "lights out" returning punts? Is he a threat back there, absolutely. But lets not make him to be something more has been just yet.

As far as Richardson, what exactly has he done to make anyone believe that he's "very good at what he does"? He burst on the scene last year in the first few games as a guy to spell an aging veteran. When he became more exposed, his production vanished. Richardson, of all the RBs on the roster is the most limited in overall ability. He has a great burst TO the hole, but does not break tackles, and does not make people miss. Do you honestly think its a coincidence that he has been inactive for that past 8 games? He has NOT been on any injury reports in that time, he does not play ANY special teams. So when its all said and done, he's the odd man out.

 

[RamzFanz]

You do realize the success they had vs. Indianapolis was more about what Indy was doing in terms of coverage, than anything the Rams suddenly figured out about getting him "in space"? THE Colts to take the running game away, and in doing so, they chose to play man coverage almost exclusively. That's easy pickings with players like Austin. Even Givens was able to exploit that coverage on crossing routes. But you seem to think its as simple as saying we are going to get Austin the ball in space, regardless of what opponents do to take that away from them. So when you say that he "play exactly like college", while that may be the case, the opportunities are few and far between as compared to "in college". And how exactly, other than the 98 yard return in the Indy game,(that again, was more about what Indy didn't do to cover that kick) has Austin been "lights out" returning punts? Is he a threat back there, absolutely. But lets not make him to be something more has been just yet.

As far as Richardson, what exactly has he done to make anyone believe that he's "very good at what he does"? He burst on the scene last year in the first few games as a guy to spell an aging veteran. When he became more exposed, his production vanished. Richardson, of all the RBs on the roster is the most limited in overall ability. He has a great burst TO the hole, but does not break tackles, and does not make people miss. Do you honestly think its a coincidence that he has been inactive for that past 8 games? He has NOT been on any injury reports in that time, he does not play ANY special teams. So when its all said and done, he's the odd man out.

So what you're saying is Schotty is incapable of designing plays that gets TA the ball in the open field? Because it's just not that hard to do when you are determined to do it. Pick plays, stacks, fakes, end arounds, pitch plays, it's just not being done. You will never convince me that you can't use an entire offense to ensure a single player gets the ball in the open field.

If DR is no good, why did Fisher and Schotty name his as the starter? And, knowing what you know, why would they run him up the middle over and over?

 

[Yamahopper]

I think you can credit them using Harkey as a fullback and multiple tight end sets for the emergence of the run game.

That was a good adjustment at that point. But even then the running game didn't take off till Stacey and Cunningham became the main running threats. Both are rookies, there is a learning curve and neither got a lot of reps in preseason. but when the coaches realized they were ready boom the game took off.

 

[CoachO]

So what you're saying is Schotty is incapable of designing plays that gets TA the ball in the open field? Because it's just not that hard to do when you are determined to do it. Pick plays, stacks, fakes, end arounds, pitch plays, it's just not being done. You will never convince me that you can't use an entire offense to ensure a single player gets the ball in the open field.

If DR is no good, why did Fisher and Schotty name his as the starter? And, knowing what you know, why would they run him up the middle over and over?

They named him the starter because he was the most experienced RB on the roster when the season started. In much the same way that Austin Pettis was the starter at WR. Once they had an alternative, and in this case, both Stacy AND Cunningham, and at least on game day, Pead, they have adjusted his role accordingly.

So you are saying that regardless of what the scheme is, they should redesign the offense so ONE PLAYER? Good luck with that. Sounds to me, that you expect them to create an offense based on gimics and illusion, just so one player can succeed? Haven't seen too many NFL offenses set up that way. Especially in this situation, when the offense is just fine, and has been more than productive enough to win being very basic, and just performing what they do better than they did earlier in the season. Heck they just beat arguably the second best team in the NFC WITHOUT Austin even on the field.

And it seems to me, they have run plenty of end arounds, with little success, lots of screen passes, which he seemed to excel at turning into big plays "in college", but as of yet, to have the same sort of success at this level. I get that Austin is going to be a big part of their plans, and yes, he has demonstrated all the big play ability, albeit spotty and inconsistent. But last time I checked, its not about one player, at the expense of the team.

 

[HometownBoy]

This season was a growing experience for sure, with all the crippling things we had to go through, including the loss of our starter.. I think it's a good season if we get 7 wins, honestly we should be bucking for 8 wins. If this team can go 8-8 without Bradford then I like what we can do with him.

 

[LesBaker]

I think TA was close to breaking off some big plays, maybe even a couple more scores, but often a block was missed or he hesitated instead of turning upfield. Those things will work themselves out I'm sure. I don't think that they didn't design plays for him, they just didn't end up working like we would have wanted.

Next year we will see some defenses gashed by that kid I'm sure of it. He's flashed plenty this year to show us he's the real deal.

 

[RamzFanz]

They named him the starter because he was the most experienced RB on the roster when the season started. In much the same way that Austin Pettis was the starter at WR. Once they had an alternative, and in this case, both Stacy AND Cunningham, and at least on game day, Pead, they have adjusted his role accordingly.

So you are saying that regardless of what the scheme is, they should redesign the offense so ONE PLAYER? Good luck with that. Sounds to me, that you expect them to create an offense based on gimics and illusion, just so one player can succeed? Haven't seen too many NFL offenses set up that way. Especially in this situation, when the offense is just fine, and has been more than productive enough to win being very basic, and just performing what they do better than they did earlier in the season. Heck they just beat arguably the second best team in the NFC WITHOUT Austin even on the field.

And it seems to me, they have run plenty of end arounds, with little success, lots of screen passes, which he seemed to excel at turning into big plays "in college", but as of yet, to have the same sort of success at this level. I get that Austin is going to be a big part of their plans, and yes, he has demonstrated all the big play ability, albeit spotty and inconsistent. But last time I checked, its not about one player, at the expense of the team.

Nonsense. My grandmother could design plays that would get TA the ball in the open field and she's dead. It's all a bunch of excuses. In the beginning of the season they would just give him the ball with no lead blockers, no hope of escape, no consideration for what he does well. It IS that simple. If they can't get him the ball in the open field, the first round draft pick that they traded up to get, then why in the hell would they do that?

You're either saying they were idiots for trading up and drafting him or for not knowing how to use him or for not using him once they figured it out. Which is it?

Should they redesign the offense for one player? No. They should have designed it with him in mind in the first place.

You act like Fisher and his coordinators are infallible gods. They aren't. They screwed up with TA and they screwed up with DR and they screwed up going with a slow ass paced spread offense and they screwed up playing soft coverage and that's why they are at 6 wins.

 

[CoachO]

Nonsense. My grandmother could design plays that would get TA the ball in the open field and she's dead. It's all a bunch of excuses. In the beginning of the season they would just give him the ball with no lead blockers, no hope of escape, no consideration for what he does well. It IS that simple. If they can't get him the ball in the open field, the first round draft pick that they traded up to get, then why in the hell would they do that?

You're either saying they were idiots for trading up and drafting him or for not knowing how to use him or for not using him once they figured it out. Which is it?

Should they redesign the offense for one player? No. They should have designed it with him in mind in the first place.

You act like Fisher and his coordinators are infallible gods. They aren't. They screwed up with TA and they screwed up with DR and they screwed up going with a slow ass paced spread offense and they screwed up playing soft coverage and that's why they are at 6 wins.

And you act as if you have ALL the answers. That its just that simple. You have NO idea how to "design an offense" if you think its as simple as making up plays to get ONE guy the ball.

These coaches approach the season as an entity. They have things that are limited to running at the beginning of the season, and eventually add more to the offense, or defense for that matter as they get further in the season. In this day and age, where scouting opponents is a high tech specialized endeavor, they simply cannot be the same team running the same "plays" in November that they are running in Sept. The better coaching staffs PLAN on being better as the season goes on. And if THIS coaching staff has shown one thing, its that this team is better in December than they are in September. This is two years in a row, they are playing at a higher level at the end of the season than they were at the beginning, even with a backup QB.

With all the youth and inexperience in the skill positions, INCLUDING your "golden boy" Austin, they are not going to put so much on them coming out of training camp that overwhelms them to the point of damaging their development later on. Once they made the commitment to getting back to the power running game, the need to "dream up plays" for Austin became less important. Yes, Schottenheimer had a great design in the TD run and the "counter reverse" to Austin in the Chicago game. But to think they are going to be able to run those sort of gimmick plays within the confines of the offense more than once or twice a game, then you are delusional.

You also seem to think that coaches don't need time to learn their personnel. Each of these additions, the draft class, be it UDFA that make the final roster, or even to some extent FA acquisitions like Cook, all learn at a different pace. All it takes is one or two of the guys who they are counting on, (Ogletree or McDonald for example) to not pick things up as quickly as others, to hold the entire defense back. You act as if this is just a game of Madden, and all we gotta do is call the right play, and everybody go where they're supposed to.

 

[RamzFanz]

With all the youth and inexperience in the skill positions, INCLUDING your "golden boy" Austin, they are not going to put so much on them coming out of training camp that overwhelms them to the point of damaging their development later on.

Once they made the commitment to getting back to the power running game, the need to "dream up plays" for Austin became less important. Yes, Schottenheimer had a great design in the TD run and the "counter reverse" to Austin in the Chicago game. But to think they are going to be able to run those sort of gimmick plays within the confines of the offense more than once or twice a game, then you are delusional.

Sorry Coach, that's all just excuses and attacks on me. You go listen to all of the less emotionally invested analysts throughout the season and even interested ones like Tory Holt and Rams on Demand and you'll find the exact same criticisms as I have. If Schotty is unable to get a player of TA's quality open, he's not worthy of the job. If he can't see that DR can't run up the middle like the rest of the world can see, I don't know what to say.

I'm not focused on TA because he's my "golden boy" but because, in his case AND DR's, the coaching blew it. I don't have a problem with how they used any other player, so why would I talk about them?

And they DID over use him in addition to poorly using him at first so were they wrong then or is that just revisionist history?

You're just being a coach hugger. Every mistake they made has an excuse.

When 75% of the fans were calling out Schotty for not getting TA the ball in the open field, we were right and the proof is in the games. When they didn't, he sucked. When they did, he exploded. You can't rewrite the facts.

 

[CoachO]

Sorry Coach, that's all just excuses and attacks on me. You go listen to all of the less emotionally invested analysts throughout the season and even interested ones like Tory Holt and Rams on Demand and you'll find the exact same criticisms as I have. If Schotty is unable to get a player of TA's quality open, he's not worthy of the job. If he can't see that DR can't run up the middle like the rest of the world can see, I don't know what to say.

I'm not focused on TA because he's my "golden boy" but because, in his case AND DR's, the coaching blew it. I don't have a problem with how they used any other player, so why would I talk about them?

And they DID over use him in addition to poorly using him at first so were they wrong then or is that just revisionist history?

You're just being a coach hugger. Every mistake they made has an excuse.

When 75% of the fans were calling out Schotty for not getting TA the ball in the open field, we were right and the proof is in the games. When they didn't, he sucked. When they did, he exploded. You can't rewrite the facts.

I'm being a coach hugger, because I understand WHY they do some of the things they have done? So because 75% of the FANS say its so, it MUST be so?

The FACTS are, Richardson was the most experienced RB on the roster, and the only one who had enough comfort in the system, (in the coaches eyes) to be able to run the offense. And to say they kept running him up the middle, well, I don't know what games you were watching the first month of the season, because they weren't handing the ball off to ANYONE. That was the bigger issue, over who and how they were when they chose to do it.

And for the record, I didn't agree with their approach that first month of the season. I stated before the preseason was over, that I didn't see this team being successful being an "up tempo, spread concept" throw it 40 times a game kind of team. So that sort of pokes a hole in your "coach hugger" accusation.

My point to this whole exchange, is that you seem to think they should have had it all figured out WEEK ONE, and anything short of that is somehow unforgivable. When I take the approach, that with a team with them many "new" and inexperienced players, especially in the skill positions, it was just the natural progression of how things had to unfold.... on both sides of the ball, for players AND coaches to find what works for EVERYONE, not just the #1 draft pick.