in the midst of glory, one nagging doubt

[PhxRam]

Have we even seen the scheme that they are going to run yet?

 

[-X-]

Have we even seen the scheme that they are going to run yet?

Not so much.




Sent via Tapatalk2.

 

[DR RAM]

Have we even seen the scheme that they are going to run yet?

Not so much.



Sent via Tapatalk2.

Exactly. I am NOT concerned.

 

[Anonymous]

Have we even seen the scheme that they are going to run yet?

Not so much.



Sent via Tapatalk2.

Exactly. I am NOT concerned.

And so....again. All those other teams that never earned a 62% in the preseason across 10 years? They WERE all running regular season schemes at that point?

 

[DR RAM]

Have we even seen the scheme that they are going to run yet?

Not so much.



Sent via Tapatalk2.

Exactly. I am NOT concerned.

And so....again. All those other teams that never earned a 62% in the preseason across 10 years? They WERE all running regular season schemes at that point?

Every other game that I've seen this year, the teams have been blitzing liberally. We haven't. Blitzing is a game changer. 62% sucks. No getting around to it, but other than C. Dahl, I am not concerned about our team. We have upgraded at every group in the defense, talent wise, except one. We are the youngest team in the league. We have two or three new starters in the secondary. Two new starters on the interior line, and two new starters at linebacker. Playing a new defensive scheme. No defensive coordinator. A young kid (Blake) making the defensive calls, for his first time. With only two PRESEASON games under our belt. I am not concerned. They just need a little time to jell.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Not always, but it depends. The point being made here is that there's no reason to freak out about anything just yet. It's just preseason, it doesn't mean much and doesn't reflect on the regular season. Lots of people look amazing in preseason and then don't transfer to the regular season. We're running a very very basic scheme here, Fisher is obviously looking to evaluate players, and see how people react in certain situations (4th down), while keeping them healthy. He wants to see their raw potential and skill, over how well they know the scheme. Scheme's can be taught and perfected over time, but if you're looking for a hidden gem you need to see their raw talent.

That's what it looks like Fisher is doing. Yes we need to improve on 3rd down right now, but a lot of improvement will come when we're actually running a defense, rather then letting guys go out and play and see what they can do.

It's similar to when you go out and play football with your friends. You just go out and do basic things, one man is a deep safety, another plays man, someone covers the middle, etc. It's not complex, it's just basic football.

 

[Anonymous]

Not always, but it depends. The point being made here is that there's no reason to freak out about anything just yet..

Well, that's good to know, but, no one IS "freaking out." Just as no one was freaking out in the threads about the potential issues at OL--which you thought too apparently since you didn't say they were.

The coach pointed to a red flag. The posters just went on to discuss what the red flag signifies.

If Bradford was missing open receivers, it would be worth pointing out. Just like the opposite. If the receivers had a high percentage of drops, it would be worth pointing out. If Jackson seemed to have lost a step, same. Just like the opposite. And so on. All just fans discussing their team from different points of view.

 

[Angry Ram]

I noticed a lot of those 3rd down conversions were given up by just a yard or 2. Like 3rd and 10, they give up 11 yards. That's what is so frustrating. But, again...2 preseason games, where 6 out of 8 quarters were mostly played by backups and 3rd stringers, I wouldn't put much stock into it. Obviously Fisher does, b/c he's the coach and that's his job. But I don't think fans should worry about it.

Again, 2 preseson games with a conversion allowed rate that bad is a red flag. No matter what. Just as Bradford throwing 6 INTs in 3 games would be a red flag. And remember, if they even improve to the high 40% in percentage terms, they are still in the running to be ranked in the 30s during the season. Also. All the other teams that never got 62%--and that includes a lot of teams ranked extremely low at this stat--were also playing backups and 3rd stringers in the preseason.

Now why would that be an issue. I mean it's obvious. Think of it this way. If this actually is a problem we will have to revise our idea of what this team can do. Previously, we were thinking, it can hang in there with a young, relatively green, ball control offense. If this kind of defensive performance continues, to be in games, it will have to be an aggressive, attack style, high-scoring offense.

So we don't want that, I assume, because I assume most people don't think this offense is ready to be a high-scoring, shoot-out winning style offense.

Fisher drew attention to it. It's a genuine issue and bears watching.

2 preseason games, for fans worry about? Nah.

2 preseason games? If you can't assume a great performance in the preseason will translate into a great unit in the regular season, you also can't assume something bad in the preseason will translate into a bad unit in the regular season.

Let's just wait and see how the D is full go during the season.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Not always, but it depends. The point being made here is that there's no reason to freak out about anything just yet..

Well, that's good to know, but, no one IS "freaking out." Just as no one was freaking out in the threads about the potential issues at OL--which you thought too apparently since you didn't say they were.

The coach pointed to a red flag. The posters just went on to discuss what the red flag signifies.

If Bradford was missing open receivers, it would be worth pointing out. Just like the opposite. If the receivers had a high percentage of drops, it would be worth pointing out. If Jackson seemed to have lost a step, same. Just like the opposite. And so on. All just fans discussing their team from different points of view.

What do you mean by that?


And Bradford missing open receivers, or receivers dropping passes, or Jackson losing a step, is different from a teams 3rd down percentages. Those things are all skill issues with the player. The teams 3rd down conversion percentage is more about the scheme. It's not that they're unable to stick to their man, or that they can't tackle (both skill issues) it's more that they're not running complex defenses.

It's not that the coaches aren't calling the right plays either, which could also be an issue.

Skill problems, are problems that can follow a team into the regular season, as it often gets harder. Problems with the team not being good on 3rd down because they're running very vanilla schemes, usually aren't as much. Teams score more in the preseason because defenses are easier to beat. That's just the nature of preseason.

 

[Ramhusker]

Well nobody that follows the Rams should feel out of sorts about this stat. It has been the norm to me for the past decade. The D seems to play great defense often on 1st and 2nd down just to blow it on 3rd and long.

But this 62% could easily be skewed after just two preseason games. One, the Colts and their new coach were obviously playing an opening day scheme for a multitude of reasons and Chiefs left their 1s in for an uncharacteristically long time for game 2 of the preseason.

I'd imagine that 62% will take a nose dive this week when our 1s stay in the game for 2 1/2 qtrs. Also, as stated, Fisher recognizes the 62% stat and his coaching staff will be looking at scheme adjustments to better fit his players to lower that number as well. The important thing is the coaching staff is aware of it which means the players will be made highly aware of it and they will be working on it now instead of in the middle of the season.

Check back with this % after the Ravens game and then we can do some hand wringing if necessary.

 

[Anonymous]

Well nobody that follows the Rams should feel out of sorts about this stat. It has been the norm to me for the past decade. The D seems to play great .

They were 2nd in the league in 2010 (34%). That's an especially amazing stat considering they were 29th in 2009 (44%).

In one year, they were getting the ball back to their own offense 10% more often and then of course also denying the opposing offense the ball 10% more.

It's one of the reasons Bradford had a good rookie year---the offense was not playing from behind as much.

 

[-X-]

So, it boils down to whether or not anyone is concerned again, eh? :lol:

Let's see what the percentage is in the third game and see if this 62% translates. I do agree that the first game was a huge stat skewer. We were running around playing basic defense, and the Colts treated it like it was the season opener. They converted 73% of their 3rd downs in that game. In the second game, the Chiefs converted 45% (more the league norm, but on the higher side). So obviously as we threw more of the playbook in, and tightened up on defense, the stats improved. They'll likely keep improving too. And as Doc said, once we start throwing the book at opposing offenses, those 3rd down conversions are going to continue to drop; as they'll be more difficult to scheme against. Plus, we're talking about teams that aren't playing starters against starters. Which, as we all know, is something that won't translate to the regular season.

The Bears, last year, were 35% on third down conversions (defense), and so far in preseason they're up around 50%. I can't see them staying in the 50% range, just like I can't see the Rams staying in the 60's. It's an eye-popping stat for sure, but it's a little early to be looking at trends for an entire defense. A player, or unit - sure. But not the entire defense.

 

[Anonymous]

So, it boils down to whether or not anyone is concerned again, eh? :lol:

Let's see what the percentage is in the third game and see if this 62% translates. I do agree that the first game was a huge stat skewer. We were running around playing basic defense, and the Colts treated it like it was the season opener. They converted 73% of their 3rd downs in that game. In the second game, the Chiefs converted 45% (more the league norm, but on the higher side). So obviously as we threw more of the playbook in, and tightened up on defense, the stats improved. They'll likely keep improving too. And as Doc said, once we start throwing the book at opposing offenses, those 3rd down conversions are going to continue to drop; as they'll be more difficult to scheme against. Plus, we're talking about teams that aren't playing starters against starters. Which, as we all know, is something that won't translate to the regular season.

The Bears, last year, were 35% on third down conversions (defense), and so far in preseason they're up around 50%. I can't see them staying in the 50% range, just like I can't see the Rams staying in the 60's. It's an eye-popping stat for sure, but it's a little early to be looking at trends for an entire defense. A player, or unit - sure. But not the entire defense.

Well, see, for me it doesn't boil down to that. These issues never do. I am always just discussing them objectively. Bradford can throw long or he can't. That's not just opinion. OLs stocked with vets can get themselves together between camp and the first game or they can't. Defenses can stop offenses on 3rd downs or not.

So what I am arguing here is that there are red flags so far and it bears watching. I am not talking about how I "feel." I am talking about the Rams defense, and whether or not something actually could be, objectively a problem. In any event all the language I use directly reflects that approach to the issue.

I also pay close attention to the arguments made. For example, in essence you're claiming that the more defense they install, they better they will get at this. I immediately think, however, that in 10 years worth of preseason games, no one ever went through that before? Yet this number is an unusual number. So much so Fisher drew attention to it himself.

Now whether or not it turns out to be an issue during the season, or how much of an issue it turns out to be, is of course still up in the air.

But it's not a strong counter-argument to claim that the issue is what packages they use and whether they're vanilla and how much they install. Because every single other NFL team has gone through that too and none has ever ended a preseason on a defensive 3rd down percentage higher than 50.

Remember, Fisher tossed the number out as something to pay attention to. He was deflecting the idea that they have "arrived." He was using it as evidence that the team still has a lot to work on. He used the number as one that is significant in its own right. He was waving it as a red flag. A red flag is a red flag. Doesn't mean it can't be fixed (though this one is not a simple fix).

 

[-X-]

So, it boils down to whether or not anyone is concerned again, eh? :lol:

Let's see what the percentage is in the third game and see if this 62% translates. I do agree that the first game was a huge stat skewer. We were running around playing basic defense, and the Colts treated it like it was the season opener. They converted 73% of their 3rd downs in that game. In the second game, the Chiefs converted 45% (more the league norm, but on the higher side). So obviously as we threw more of the playbook in, and tightened up on defense, the stats improved. They'll likely keep improving too. And as Doc said, once we start throwing the book at opposing offenses, those 3rd down conversions are going to continue to drop; as they'll be more difficult to scheme against. Plus, we're talking about teams that aren't playing starters against starters. Which, as we all know, is something that won't translate to the regular season.

The Bears, last year, were 35% on third down conversions (defense), and so far in preseason they're up around 50%. I can't see them staying in the 50% range, just like I can't see the Rams staying in the 60's. It's an eye-popping stat for sure, but it's a little early to be looking at trends for an entire defense. A player, or unit - sure. But not the entire defense.

Well, see, for me it doesn't boil down to that. These issues never do. I am always just discussing them objectively. Bradford can throw long or he can't. That's not just opinion. OLs stocked with vets can get themselves together between camp and the first game or they can't. Defenses can stop offenses on 3rd downs or not.

So what I am arguing here is that there are red flags so far and it bears watching. I am not talking about how I "feel." I am talking about the Rams defense, and whether or not something actually could be, objectively a problem. In any event all the language I use directly reflects that approach to the issue.

I also pay close attention to the arguments made. For example, in essence you're claiming that the more defense they install, they better they will get at this. I immediately think, however, that in 10 years worth of preseason games, no one ever went through that before? Yet this number is an unusual number. So much so Fisher drew attention to it himself.

Now whether or not it turns out to be an issue during the season, or how much of an issue it turns out to be, is of course still up in the air.

But it's not a strong counter-argument to claim that the issue is what packages they use and whether they're vanilla and how much they install. Because every single other NFL team has gone through that too and none has ever ended a preseason on a defensive 3rd down percentage higher than 50.

Remember, Fisher tossed the number out as something to pay attention to. He was deflecting the idea that they have "arrived." He was using it as evidence that the team still has a lot to work on. He used the number as one that is significant in its own right. He was waving it as a red flag. A red flag is a red flag. Doesn't mean it can't be fixed (though this one is not a simple fix).

Well, here's the thing though. You're not really using the right sample size. You didn't check the last decade of preseason games that only extended through two games. You checked the entire preaseason schedule to see where teams ranked at the end. Correct? That's 4 games a piece, and not two.

In that case, you're going to find some anomalies. Just like you are here. The teams the Rams are playing (specifically the Colts) converted a good deal of their 3rd downs (and the Chiefs didn't do NEARLY as well) against a vanilla, base defense rotating starters. So what do we have? We have two preseason games. That's it. For further illustration, take a look at the first preseason game the Packers played against the Browns last year. The Browns converted 61% of their first downs against ... the Packers. That leveled off and got much better as the preseason wore on. You're likely going to find the same thing happens with this team too. So they didn't play well against the Colts in a game that they didn't really game plan FOR, while the Colts ... did.

Meh.

I get that it's a high number and Fisher pointed to it saying it had to improve. It is, and it will. History bears that out.

 

[Anonymous]

So, it boils down to whether or not anyone is concerned again, eh? :lol:

Let's see what the percentage is in the third game and see if this 62% translates. I do agree that the first game was a huge stat skewer. We were running around playing basic defense, and the Colts treated it like it was the season opener. They converted 73% of their 3rd downs in that game. In the second game, the Chiefs converted 45% (more the league norm, but on the higher side). So obviously as we threw more of the playbook in, and tightened up on defense, the stats improved. They'll likely keep improving too. And as Doc said, once we start throwing the book at opposing offenses, those 3rd down conversions are going to continue to drop; as they'll be more difficult to scheme against. Plus, we're talking about teams that aren't playing starters against starters. Which, as we all know, is something that won't translate to the regular season.

The Bears, last year, were 35% on third down conversions (defense), and so far in preseason they're up around 50%. I can't see them staying in the 50% range, just like I can't see the Rams staying in the 60's. It's an eye-popping stat for sure, but it's a little early to be looking at trends for an entire defense. A player, or unit - sure. But not the entire defense.

Well, see, for me it doesn't boil down to that. These issues never do. I am always just discussing them objectively. Bradford can throw long or he can't. That's not just opinion. OLs stocked with vets can get themselves together between camp and the first game or they can't. Defenses can stop offenses on 3rd downs or not.

So what I am arguing here is that there are red flags so far and it bears watching. I am not talking about how I "feel." I am talking about the Rams defense, and whether or not something actually could be, objectively a problem. In any event all the language I use directly reflects that approach to the issue.

I also pay close attention to the arguments made. For example, in essence you're claiming that the more defense they install, they better they will get at this. I immediately think, however, that in 10 years worth of preseason games, no one ever went through that before? Yet this number is an unusual number. So much so Fisher drew attention to it himself.

Now whether or not it turns out to be an issue during the season, or how much of an issue it turns out to be, is of course still up in the air.

But it's not a strong counter-argument to claim that the issue is what packages they use and whether they're vanilla and how much they install. Because every single other NFL team has gone through that too and none has ever ended a preseason on a defensive 3rd down percentage higher than 50.

Remember, Fisher tossed the number out as something to pay attention to. He was deflecting the idea that they have "arrived." He was using it as evidence that the team still has a lot to work on. He used the number as one that is significant in its own right. He was waving it as a red flag. A red flag is a red flag. Doesn't mean it can't be fixed (though this one is not a simple fix).

Well, here's the thing though. You're not really using the right sample size. You didn't check the last decade of preseason games that only extended through two games. You checked the entire preaseason schedule to see where teams ranked at the end. Correct? That's 4 games a piece, and not two.

In that case, you're going to find some anomalies. Just like you are here. The teams the Rams are playing (specifically the Colts) converted a good deal of their 3rd downs (and the Chiefs didn't do NEARLY as well) against a vanilla, base defense rotating starters. So what do we have? We have two preseason games. That's it. For further illustration, take a look at the first preseason game the Packers played against the Browns last year. The Browns converted 61% of their first downs against ... the Packers. That leveled off and got much better as the preseason wore on. You're likely going to find the same thing happens with this team too. So they didn't play well against the Colts in a game that they didn't really game plan FOR, while the Colts ... did.

Meh.

I get that it's a high number and Fisher pointed to it saying it had to improve. It is, and it will. History bears that out.

Saying something bears watching? There is no "right sample size." If Bradford threw 8 INTs in the first 2 games, would it be much an argument to say "but it's just 2 games"? It would be no argument at all against the statement "it bears watching." There are certain things aren't supposed to happen--regardless. If they happen twice then you say "boy it bears watching."

History btw does not bear out the idea that someone with such a bad defensive 3rd down percentage improves a whole lot.

And Fisher did not say "we have some statistical anomalies to ignore." See cause he's using stats the way they are supposed to be used. They point to, and identify, actual issues. What counts is the actual issue. So when he says "62%" (not an exact quote but it's what he meant) he is not just throwing a number out. He knows full well that it points to something (although it's not going to be a simple thing it points to). In fact for him "62%" is just a shorthand symbol the things it points to, and he probably knows exactly what those things are, or pre-film viewing, has a pretty good idea. And to him those are real things and he wants to fix them.

Can he? Given how bad that is--and I mean bad way beyond any talk of just jiggered numbers or anomalies--who knows how MUCH he can fix it.

Cause everything you say about the preseason, schemes, vanilla, installs, and statistical anomalies aside, there have been 32 teams playing preseason ball for 10 years, and that's a very rare and bad number. Yet all those things I just listed? Other teams go through all of them too. For all teams, it's the preseason, schemes aren't complete, they play vanilla, they still have things to install, and numbers can take funny turns. Still, 62% is rare to the point of nonexistent.

Like throwing 8 INTs, it doesn't "just happen."

So, again, it bears watching. And it does. Bear watching.

 

[DR RAM]

So, it boils down to whether or not anyone is concerned again, eh? :lol:

Let's see what the percentage is in the third game and see if this 62% translates. I do agree that the first game was a huge stat skewer. We were running around playing basic defense, and the Colts treated it like it was the season opener. They converted 73% of their 3rd downs in that game. In the second game, the Chiefs converted 45% (more the league norm, but on the higher side). So obviously as we threw more of the playbook in, and tightened up on defense, the stats improved. They'll likely keep improving too. And as Doc said, once we start throwing the book at opposing offenses, those 3rd down conversions are going to continue to drop; as they'll be more difficult to scheme against. Plus, we're talking about teams that aren't playing starters against starters. Which, as we all know, is something that won't translate to the regular season.

The Bears, last year, were 35% on third down conversions (defense), and so far in preseason they're up around 50%. I can't see them staying in the 50% range, just like I can't see the Rams staying in the 60's. It's an eye-popping stat for sure, but it's a little early to be looking at trends for an entire defense. A player, or unit - sure. But not the entire defense.

Well, see, for me it doesn't boil down to that. These issues never do. I am always just discussing them objectively. Bradford can throw long or he can't. That's not just opinion. OLs stocked with vets can get themselves together between camp and the first game or they can't. Defenses can stop offenses on 3rd downs or not.

So what I am arguing here is that there are red flags so far and it bears watching. I am not talking about how I "feel." I am talking about the Rams defense, and whether or not something actually could be, objectively a problem. In any event all the language I use directly reflects that approach to the issue.

I also pay close attention to the arguments made. For example, in essence you're claiming that the more defense they install, they better they will get at this. I immediately think, however, that in 10 years worth of preseason games, no one ever went through that before? Yet this number is an unusual number. So much so Fisher drew attention to it himself.

Now whether or not it turns out to be an issue during the season, or how much of an issue it turns out to be, is of course still up in the air.

But it's not a strong counter-argument to claim that the issue is what packages they use and whether they're vanilla and how much they install. Because every single other NFL team has gone through that too and none has ever ended a preseason on a defensive 3rd down percentage higher than 50.

Remember, Fisher tossed the number out as something to pay attention to. He was deflecting the idea that they have "arrived." He was using it as evidence that the team still has a lot to work on. He used the number as one that is significant in its own right. He was waving it as a red flag. A red flag is a red flag. Doesn't mean it can't be fixed (though this one is not a simple fix).

Well, here's the thing though. You're not really using the right sample size. You didn't check the last decade of preseason games that only extended through two games. You checked the entire preaseason schedule to see where teams ranked at the end. Correct? That's 4 games a piece, and not two.

In that case, you're going to find some anomalies. Just like you are here. The teams the Rams are playing (specifically the Colts) converted a good deal of their 3rd downs (and the Chiefs didn't do NEARLY as well) against a vanilla, base defense rotating starters. So what do we have? We have two preseason games. That's it. For further illustration, take a look at the first preseason game the Packers played against the Browns last year. The Browns converted 61% of their first downs against ... the Packers. That leveled off and got much better as the preseason wore on. You're likely going to find the same thing happens with this team too. So they didn't play well against the Colts in a game that they didn't really game plan FOR, while the Colts ... did.

Meh.

I get that it's a high number and Fisher pointed to it saying it had to improve. It is, and it will. History bears that out.

Fisher brought attention to it, to challenge his own players. And X has it right in if you can't find a number this high in 10 years, it's an anomaly. Certainly, you didn't break down the first two preseason games of every team in the last 10 years. So, you must be going on stats of 4 preseason games. If that is the case, then you are comparing apples to oranges. Sample size matters, and if you are being objective then you would agree with that.

Everything they do bears watching to me. That's why I watch.

 

[-X-]

History btw does not bear out the idea that someone with such a bad defensive 3rd down percentage improves a whole lot.

Let's do this. Why don't you just tell me what you want to hear, and I'll say that before I say what I'm saying.

It bears watching?

Okay. It bears watching.

It's 62%, and Fisher pointed to it; yes. He ALSO said, "but on the flip side of the coin, we're not doing the things we would do during the regular season to try and get off the field on third down, because those are the things you kind of hold back (in preseason)" [LINK]. And that's all anyone is saying in response to this anomaly. And yes, it is an anomaly. As I showed you, the first game of preseason last year, the Packers got waxed by the Browns on third down conversions to the tune of 61%. Then they were right around the league norm for the rest of the preseason. Again, if you had looked at *only* the first two games of preseason for the last decade, it would probably be more disparaging than the 4 game sample you're using now. Starters play for one quarter in the first game (if even) and most don't game plan at all.

It bears watching, but I'm not 'expecting' it to be an issue.

 

[Anonymous]

History btw does not bear out the idea that someone with such a bad defensive 3rd down percentage improves a whole lot.

Let's do this. Why don't you just tell me what you want to hear, and I'll say that before I say what I'm saying.

It bears watching?

Okay. It bears watching.

It's 62%, and Fisher pointed to it; yes. He ALSO said, "but on the flip side of the coin, we're not doing the things we would do during the regular season to try and get off the field on third down, because those are the things you kind of hold back (in preseason)" [LINK]. And that's all anyone is saying in response to this anomaly. And yes, it is an anomaly. As I showed you, the first game of preseason last year, the Packers got waxed by the Browns on third down conversions to the tune of 61%. Then they were right around the league norm for the rest of the preseason. Again, if you had looked at *only* the first two games of preseason for the last decade, it would probably be more disparaging than the 4 game sample you're using now. Starters play for one quarter in the first game (if even) and most don't game plan at all.

It bears watching, but I'm not 'expecting' it to be an issue.

Yes, but again, first that one comment from Fisher, if I recall, was about goalline defense. That's not all of 3rd down obviously. And second, most teams are in that position, or a lot have been over 10 years--where they don't use everything in the preseason. So if that were a direct cause, then we should have seen a lot of defenses cross the 50% line, but we haven't.

In terms of looking at the first 2 games what you would find is an interesting issue that bears watching.

Some issues don't bear watching ("why did Bradford throw it to Amendola's crotch!") Some do bear watching. In fact, both Softli and Venturi mentioned it separately on 101 today. They were lowkey but they brought it up.

But in terms of "it bears watching"...that was my first post!

I looked at the numbers, no one I saw was ever as bad as 62% in the preseason. I mean. As far back as I looked, no one was that bad,

This one, in short, bears watching.

And it can't stay that bad. That's record setting bad. Will it? Bears watching.........

Anyway. When someone says "the coach expressed something about this issue, and that's an unusual number, and it bears watching"--I'm not sure how much defcon 1 level counter-arguing that should set off. It could be "maybe, dunno" or "yeah if it stays like that particular thing, that's an issue" or "wake me after game 4"--but, anything beyond that?

I mean it's not like I said I woulda drafted Suh instead or anything. :mrgreen:


From Pitch Black (2000):

Riddick: Looks clear.

[A creature lunges out and almost decapitates Johns before taking flight into the dark]

Johns (Panting): I thought you said it was CLEAR!

Riddick: I said, it looks clear!

Johns: Well what does it look like now?

Riddick: … Looks clear.

 

[-X-]

History btw does not bear out the idea that someone with such a bad defensive 3rd down percentage improves a whole lot.

Let's do this. Why don't you just tell me what you want to hear, and I'll say that before I say what I'm saying.

It bears watching?

Okay. It bears watching.

It's 62%, and Fisher pointed to it; yes. He ALSO said, "but on the flip side of the coin, we're not doing the things we would do during the regular season to try and get off the field on third down, because those are the things you kind of hold back (in preseason)" [LINK]. And that's all anyone is saying in response to this anomaly. And yes, it is an anomaly. As I showed you, the first game of preseason last year, the Packers got waxed by the Browns on third down conversions to the tune of 61%. Then they were right around the league norm for the rest of the preseason. Again, if you had looked at *only* the first two games of preseason for the last decade, it would probably be more disparaging than the 4 game sample you're using now. Starters play for one quarter in the first game (if even) and most don't game plan at all.

It bears watching, but I'm not 'expecting' it to be an issue.

Yes, but again, first that one comment from Fisher, if I recall, was about goalline defense. That's not all of 3rd down obviously. And second, most teams are in that position, or a lot have been over 10 years--where they don't use everything in the preseason. So if that were a direct cause, then we should have seen a lot of defenses cross the 50% line, but we haven't.

In terms of looking at the first 2 games what you would find is an interesting issue that bears watching.

Some issues don't bear watching ("why did Bradford throw it to Amendola's crotch!") Some do bear watching. In fact, both Softli and Venturi mentioned it separately on 101 today. They were lowkey but they brought it up.

But in terms of "it bears watching"...that was my first post!

I looked at the numbers, no one I saw was ever as bad as 62% in the preseason. I mean. As far back as I looked, no one was that bad,

This one, in short, bears watching.

And it can't stay that bad. That's record setting bad. Will it? Bears watching.........

Anyway. When someone says "the coach expressed something about this issue, and that's an unusual number, and it bears watching"--I'm not sure how much defcon 1 level counter-arguing that should set off. It could be "maybe, dunno" or "yeah if it stays like that particular thing, that's an issue" or "wake me after game 4"--but, anything beyond that?

I mean it's not like I said I woulda drafted Suh instead or anything. :mrgreen:

So, let me get this straight.

It bears watching?

I dunno.

And there's no defcon 1 counter-arguing going on. I mean, if you didn't want others to see it differently than you, then maybe preface it with "This bears watching and I'll accept no substitute for watching. You may not glance, you may not peek, and you may not casually observe. You must watch it like a bear watches salmon. Because it bears watching."

Salmon.

And no, Fisher wasn't referring to goal-line defense. It was the sentence that immediately followed his pointing out of the 3rd down efficiency (or lack thereof). Same breath and everything. And again, in two preseason games you're going to find bad stats. Let's see what happens after four games; because those are the numbers you're looking at, yeah? Until then, IMO, it is what it is. In 2011, after preseason, the Rams were ranked #1 in third down conversions. Dead last at the end of the regular season. By a lot. Also in 2011, the Chiefs (during the first two games of preseason) had a 19% 3rd down conversion rate on offense. HISTORICALLY bad. Things get worse, things improve, things stay lateral. But, I'll go ahead and watch it like a bear anyway.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Bear watching.

http://explore.org/#!/live-cams/player/ ... ooks-falls