John Clayton on 101ESPN (Shurmur, McD, Schott, Bradford)

[-X-]

[rp3]http://icestream.dev-cms.com:8000/stl/2012/07/07052012110022.mp3[/rp3]

Around 4:45 in --

Talks about the differences between Shurmur, McDaniels, Schottenheimer (I think Bernie is reading these discussions).

Hey Bernie!

Scrub. :neh:

Highlights:

(your evaluation of Schottenheimer and the Rams)
He's gonna be a good fit in STL. Anyone in the world would be better than Josh McDaniels. He was horrible in Denver, he was horrible in St Louis, and now he gets to go back to New England. The question is, can Schott be as good as Shurmur? 3-step drop, get rid of the ball quickly, be precise, etc. The only criticism of Schott (I think he'll be a success because he has a better QB), he puts a little too much motion in the scheme, and that tends to get complicated. That's different with Bradford. He has the mind to be able to handle that if the talent can adjust to it. I don't think there's any doubt he'll have shorter drops.

Will he be better than Shumur? Debatable. Will he be better than McDaniels? Definitely.

One thing is that he works with the player very well and asks what the player thinks will work. Sometimes he gets a little too tricky, but it's imagination and a learning curve. It's the right time in his career to get a QB like Bradford. There may not be a ton of success in the first year, but by 2014/2015, he could get a head coaching offer. He was already on interviews before, but this pairing can really work out for him.

(On not having an "official" defensive coordinator)
It's going to be more of a talent level than a coaching level. When you see it's Fisher, McGinnis, and a very good coaching staff, they'll make it work. The one thing we know is, he had a big part of that defense and it gave him the opportunity when he had Greg Williams to be a walk-around HC, but now it's a matter of him being directly involved. This definitely can work.

 

[DR RAM]

I hope he's better than both of them put together, but if the offense doesn't execute consistently, or the talent doesn't pan out, then it won't really matter who the OC is.

 

[-X-]

I hope he's better than both of them put together, but if the offense doesn't execute consistently, or the talent doesn't pan out, then it won't really matter who the OC is.

This is true. They can only do so much.

 

[Username]

This system that system. This version of that system this version of this system. I don't give a shit anymore.

There is some talent on the offensive side of the ball. There are also some glaring weaknesses. Use the offseason/tape to learn your personnel and develop/call your offense accordingly.

I just sure a hell hope injuries don't start happening again. The offense especially cannot afford any. If so the line may handicap what the offense is capable of doing all year.

If the defense shapes up the way we are all hoping it does, having a ball control conservative no turnover offense doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.

 

[Angry Ram]

This system that system. This version of that system this version of this system. I don't give a shit anymore.

There is some talent on the offensive side of the ball. There are also some glaring weaknesses. Use the offseason/tape to learn your personnel and develop/call your offense accordingly.

I just sure a hell hope injuries don't start happening again. The offense especially cannot afford any. If so the line may handicap what the offense is capable of doing all year.

If the defense shapes up the way we are all hoping it does, having a ball control conservative no turnover offense doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.

Yeah just play some football.

 

[Anonymous]

This system that system. This version of that system this version of this system. I don't give a shyte anymore.

There is some talent on the offensive side of the ball. There are also some glaring weaknesses. Use the offseason/tape to learn your personnel and develop/call your offense accordingly.

I just sure a hell hope injuries don't start happening again. The offense especially cannot afford any. If so the line may handicap what the offense is capable of doing all year.

If the defense shapes up the way we are all hoping it does, having a ball control conservative no turnover offense doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.

Yeah just play some football.

It;s important though.

Learning a new system is daunting for an offense. It just is. I remember last year when some people said that it would be easy for Bradford to learn another offense. Well, but, it wasn;t.

A new system means a new language. It's not the same as getting a new coordinator with the same system. Cause at it's core, that's one of the fundamental things a system is. Just a terminology. But a really vast terminology.

So first it's worth knowing that in fact, yes, Shottenheimer's system (Coryell) is different from Shurmur's (WCO) and McD's (Perkins-Erhardt). That;s very different from when Vermeil hired Martz, because regardless how different Martz was from Rhome in playcalling philosophy, they ran the same system (Coryell). That meant a much easier adaptation and it made it much easier for the offense to take off. In fact, Vermeil directly said at the time that the main reason he hired Martz and not the other candidate, Matt Cavanaugh, is because Cavanaugh ran a WCO, and that meant the offense had to switch systems.

And, different systems come with different techniques, too. So that has to be learned also.

Imagine if one day, you woke up and everything related to driving had changed. Including new traffic signs and signals. New colors, new and different words, the shapes of the signs all different, speed limit signs used entirely different symbols instead of numbers, PLUS every switch and nob in your car was changed around AND was now called something different. So that day you go to get your car inspected and instead of saying "switch on the left turn signal" they said "lob the red lepton." And you hit the wrong thing and the inspector sys "no! don't fangle the hadron! lob the red lepton!"

Soon you would get used to it. Football would take longer.

So just knowing it's a different system is important in its own right.

BUT we also find out by sifting through what the coaches and players are saying that Shottenheimer is making big efforts to shape this offense around what he saw on film in 2010. So the system and terminology and some of the philosophical approaches and techniques might be different, but there's a core of the PLAYS that are the same. That's worth knowing too.

 

[SunTzu.v.Camus]

I just want stability at this point. No mat5ter how bad...I just want the same guys teaching the same system for 4-5 years...
so that the players get a fair chance to show their ability...and play at full speed!!

The defense will be pretty good this I reckon....the offense will have their moments this year
but it's next year where I'd look for a BIG jump with the offensive(Bradford mostly)
with them becoming a LOT more comfortable in the offense and building on their scheme with Schotty.

So, in summation, I think the defense will flash first this year....with the offense becoming consistent every game.
Defense will rank 15th.....offense/21st and kinda boring...but efficient.

or maybe none of it will happen
and I will be hit by a bus.
ya just never know!

 

[bluecoconuts]

I just sure a hell hope injuries don't start happening again. The offense especially cannot afford any. If so the line may handicap what the offense is capable of doing all year.

Yup, year in and year out the injuries are what really screws us over. Hopefully we can start to get over that bug.

I don't know if we need better turf, better medical staffs, more milk at the dinner table, or a tiny old blind woman to break the curse, but something's gotta end them.

 

[RamFan503]

I just sure a hell hope injuries don't start happening again. The offense especially cannot afford any. If so the line may handicap what the offense is capable of doing all year.

Yup, year in and year out the injuries are what really screws us over. Hopefully we can start to get over that bug.

I don't know if we need better turf, better medical staffs, more milk at the dinner table, or a tiny old blind woman to break the curse, but something's gotta end them.

Man - ditto this.

 

[Thordaddy]

I just sure a hell hope injuries don't start happening again. The offense especially cannot afford any. If so the line may handicap what the offense is capable of doing all year.

Yup, year in and year out the injuries are what really screws us over. Hopefully we can start to get over that bug.

I don't know if we need better turf, better medical staffs, more milk at the dinner table, or a tiny old blind woman to break the curse, but something's gotta end them.

If you were an insurance agent who was writing a policy insuring the Rams against injuries you'd tell them they had some high risk players on the squad last year one of whom is DX additionally the longer a RB plays the higher the probability he'll get hurt.

We had the third oldest roster in the league last year and an actuary would say that was asking for a lot of injuries.

Some of the injuries were unavoidable and that BEING a known phenomenon OF the game, managing the manageable part of injury likelihood becomes a matter of foresight or oversight and if you don't learn from the hindsight.. no sight.

Good strength and conditioning coaching helps with that but the way the new CBA limits how much teams can require players to be on sight IMO the league wide injury numbers would intuitively be expected to go up, again I said intuitively though.

My major point though is this , I managed my own business for years ,recognizing the risks of injury was a big part OF keeping injury minimized, I fail to see that it would be irrelevant just because there are so many uncontrollable factors,IMO the MORE likely you are to have injuries the MORE vital you see the at risk factors and try to eliminate those you can.

Moneyball the movie ,makes the point much better than I can, numbers can tell you a lot about OTHER numbers and I'd be willing to bet a Big Gulp that the age of a roster and total injuries vary directly across a large sample and that games lost are effected if by NO other factor than the length of recovery time.

I don't think injuries are like the weather where ALL you can do is complain, I think you can COMPLAIN about things that aren't done about them.
I'm delighted we got younger at RB ,that's step at managing the risk of injury there.
I think we're asking for someone to play a minimum of 8 games in DX's place this year if he sticks ,I'd rather give THAT guy all 16 and bet he misses fewer .
We've signed a center with a lot of injury history,we have a RT with a number of concussions and a LT who is coming off a pec tear ,we've got some young guys on the roster and JMO but at some point we need to look at that units likelihood of injury and effect the mix to reduce the risk, or we could throw our hands up and resign ourselves to dumb luck.
On topic I expect lot of improvement in our offense ,I believe we are as or more talented on offense as SF was last year and I think Schottenheimer is sensitive to scaling things to the real absorption of material, he IMO will benefit from McD's mistakes.
If we stay away from the injuries as was said , we look good.

 

[Anonymous]

I just sure a hell hope injuries don't start happening again. The offense especially cannot afford any. If so the line may handicap what the offense is capable of doing all year.

Yup, year in and year out the injuries are what really screws us over. Hopefully we can start to get over that bug.

I don't know if we need better turf, better medical staffs, more milk at the dinner table, or a tiny old blind woman to break the curse, but something's gotta end them.

They just need better luck.

The vast majority of guys went down for completely fluke reasons. There was no prior injury history (not in the vast majority of cases). Some of it happened on grass, in practices. Fisher kept the medical staff, and besides the medical staff can't cause something like Kehl getting a high ankle sprain in practice. They studied the injuries and Demoff was the guy in charge of the study.

They apparently still trust Demoff's findings in that building because they drafted a couple of guys with previous injury histories this year, and assumed they will be fine.

So it was luck, pure and simple.

No other argument out there I have seen holds up against that.

And we'll know it's luck if it stops. Fisher and company are apparently trusting Demoff's findings, cause they are not doing a single thing different. In fact they not only kept the medical staff, they kept the former training staff.

 

[Thordaddy]

Well there you have two points of view one claiming it's "pure and simple " "dumb luck" ,a roll of the dice.Completely discounting the ability to improve upon the ability to predict,completely discounting age as a factor in durability.

The other POV uses the mathematical analysis the entire insurance industry is built upon, and the concept of fund of usefulness that states simply things wear out.

I leave it to the reader to decide which case is better made,but I don't know about the rest,I buy insurance,it's part of my budget and actually the law requires some of it, I trade vehicles when the mileage gets excessive,simple principles that apply to an array of things.
When I go to the casino I rely upon luck and more often than not I come home with less money and lots of stories,because the casino? they use the mathematical analysis.

Luck is a myth,it's superstition, it's just the way we mortals explain the unexpected, the random occurrence ,but when we ignore the expect able we make it unexpected, and then simplistically label it as luck when if we'd done our homework we could see SOME not all but SOME of it coming.

Let's ask a question here,suppose the Rams employed nothing but WR's who had as many knee surgeries as DX,imprudent? Expect a lot of WR injuries then? From there we're discussing degree.

Luck as a fallacy:
Another view holds that "luck is probability taken personally." A rationalist approach to luck includes the application of the rules of probability and an avoidance of unscientific beliefs. The rationalist feels the belief in luck is a result of poor reasoning or wishful thinking. To a rationalist, a believer in luck who asserts that something has influenced his or her luck commits the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy: that because two events are connected sequentially, they are connected causally as well. In general:

A happens (luck-attracting event or action) and then B happens;
Therefore, A influenced B.

More contemporary authors writing on the subject believe that definition of good destiny is: one who enjoys good health, has the physical and mental capabilities of achieving his goals in life, has good appearance, has happiness in mind and is not prone to accidents. [8]

In the rationalist perspective, probability is only affected by confirmed causal connections.

 

[Yamahopper]

In the NFL it's about the scheme.
But success of the scheme is dependent on the usage of the talent in the scheme. The key is grasping what the talent can or can't do till the optimum scheme talent can be obtained. Maximum efficiency is the goal...Keep the ball moving down field, nothing else matters.