Peter King: MMQB - 11/17/14

[Prime Time]

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/11/17/nfl-week-11-jonas-gray-patriots/

David E. Klutho/Sports Illustrated/The MMQB

The Perfect Patriot
On Sunday night, America tuned in to see Tom Brady and Andrew Luck battle for AFC supremacy. Instead an undrafted journeyman running back stole the show. Plus, the Chiefs roll on, and what's next for Adrian Peterson?
By Peter King
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rams mentions: (To read the entire article click the link above the pic).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure must be a tough call, to make a coach this confused.

Since Sam Bradford tore his ACL on Aug. 23, Rams coach Jeff Fisher has had quite a time figuring who will play the quarterback position, as this succession of statements shows:

Aug. 25: Fisher says Shaun Hill will be his quarterback “for the season.” Said Fisher: “I think it’s important once you make a change for whatever reason, you stick with it. And we’re sticking with this. There’s no doubt about that. That allows everybody to get comfortable and have confidence in who is under center as opposed to ‘Well, what are we going to do this week?’ There’s no doubt that he’s our guy.”

Jeff Fisher. (Christian Petersen/Getty Images)

Sept. 7: Hill injured a quad muscle and had to leave the Rams’ opening game. Austin Davis replaced him. Davis started the next two games.

Sept. 14: A Tweet from the Rams’ website said: “Fisher confirms when Shaun Hill returns, he will remain the ‪#Rams starting quarterback. ‪#STLvsTB“

Oct. 1: The Rams return from their bye, and Fisher announces Davis will be the starting quarterback for the rest of the season. Said Fisher: “I did say that Shaun was our quarterback. My job is to make the right decisions and I felt that I was going to go this way pretty much after the Tampa Bay game based on what I saw, and then the Dallas game was just what really convinced us as a staff and myself. And he [Davis] deserves it.”

Nov. 10: Fisher, asked he was considering benching the slumping Davis after a poor performance at Arizona, said: “No. He [Davis] didn’t have his best half. He missed some opportunities. He made a couple bad decisions and he had trouble seeing at times. The last couple of weeks, he’s thrown four interceptions, but we’re going to hang in there.”

Nov. 12: Fisher announces he is benching Davis and will start Hill. “I just felt that the best thing to do, at this point moving forward, was to lean on the experienced quarterback. [Austin] is much better now than he was when he started, but made the decision to go ahead and play with Shaun. It’s all out in the open. There’s no controversy.”

Unsolicited advice for a 19-year head coach: Might be a good idea to take “for the season” out of the coaching lexicon, even after Shaun Hill engineered the upset of the Broncos on Sunday.

I will say this in defense of Fisher: It’s hard to have faith in either of these quarterbacks after watching 10 games of them. Whether the Rams have Sam Bradford back next season, they’ve got to invest in a second quarterback they can trust to win games. There aren’t many of those around, obviously. But if Bradford returns, his fragility shows backup quarterback is one of the most important 10 players on the St. Louis roster.
--------------
Defensive Players of the Week

Alec Ogletree, linebacker, St. Louis. Roll this around in your head: The St. Louis Rams, who had allowed more than 30 points in six of nine games prior to Sunday, held Peyton Manning and the explosive Broncos to seven at the Edward Jones Dome. In the 22-7 victory, Ogletree was the leader of the pack: 13 tackles, an interception and two passes defensed. Chosen with the Rams’ second first-round pick in 2013, Ogletree is rapidly becoming the kind of pass-rusher and pass-defender every quarterback has to fear. This was his second straight game with a pick.

 

[iBruce]

He's right about taking the "for the season" out of your coaching dictionary. It's a long season.

 

[dbrooks25]

"Roll this around in your head: The St. Louis Rams, who had allowed more than 30 points in six of nine games prior to Sunday, held Peyton Manning and the explosive Broncos to seven at the Edward Jones Dome."

My problem with this comment is it makes those who do not know the Rams think the defense gave up those 30 points in the six of nine games prior to Sunday.

 

[Robocop]

"Roll this around in your head: The St. Louis Rams, who had allowed more than 30 points in six of nine games prior to Sunday, held Peyton Manning and the explosive Broncos to seven at the Edward Jones Dome."

My problem with this comment is it makes those who do not know the Rams think the defense gave up those 30 points in the six of nine games prior to Sunday.

thats what these asssholes do. they read a bunch of statistics and determine right there how good or bad a team is. useless. give me their damn job apparently any bafoon could do that

 

[DaveFan'51]

thats what these asssholes do. they read a bunch of statistics and determine right there how good or bad a team is. useless. give me their damn job apparently any bafoon could do that

I'd come out of retirement for a job like this!

 

[Alan]

Being the contrarian that I am, you guys are picking on one tiny part of a statement and ignoring his point. I don't care how many points our O contributed to that horrendous points against average but can any of you say our D didn't suck during that period? His comment, when taken in context, was perfectly correct IMO. Our D was pathetic early in the season.

 

[LACHAMP46]

Being the contrarian that I am, you guys are picking on one tiny part of a statement and ignoring his point. I don't care how many points our O contributed to that horrendous points against average but can any of you say our D didn't suck during that period? His comment, when taken in context, was perfectly correct IMO. Our D was pathetic early in the season.

Hey Alan, we all know the defense was sucking early, all the yards on the ground, the missed tackles, blown coverages. But WE don't like other people saying it.......LOL

 

[Mackeyser]

You are technically correct, Alan, that our D played poorly early in the season (I'd actually say that they played inconsistently, but tomayto/tomahto), but if one is going to do even cursory analysis about out D, then proper attribution with respect to points allowed BY the D is very important.

I mean in a caricaturish example, if the O gave up 4 pick 6s a game and the D gave up 2 FGs a game, that'd still be 30 pts. Difference being that the D would be super stingy and only responsible for 6 pts per game! Thus, no matter how well or poorly they played during that stretch, the points they were actually responsible for matter on D since it's been used as a comparative tool (the O didn't give up any on Sunday, so comparing Sunday's 7 to a day when the Offense gave up points is like comparing Apples to Oranges)...

Peter King knows this and should parse that difference... I know why he didn't. He stays up all night putting that rather large article together. I saw the piece on Real Sports and his Sunday/Monday morning is a real damned grind. I mean, it's like a 35 hour day... So, I get why he's taking the short cut... but...it's a short cut and not accurate.

 

[kurtfaulk]

Being the contrarian that I am, you guys are picking on one tiny part of a statement and ignoring his point. I don't care how many points our O contributed to that horrendous points against average but can any of you say our D didn't suck during that period? His comment, when taken in context, was perfectly correct IMO. Our D was pathetic early in the season.

the d has been lights out the last three weeks. when i was trying to remember the cards game i thought the they scored less than 20 points until i realised they put up 31.

i've long forgotten the bailing, turnover, pick 6 machine the rams had at qb back then.

.

 

[Alan]

Mackeyser thinking inaccurate and misleading are synonyms:
I saw the piece on Real Sports and his Sunday/Monday morning is a real damned grind. I mean, it's like a 35 hour day... So, I get why he's taking the short cut... but...it's a short cut and not accurate.

Sorry Mac but you're wrong here and you didn't read what he said correctly. What he said was totally accurate although somewhat misleading. Had he said the Rams defense gave up more than 30 points in 6 of the nine last games it would not have been accurate. What he actually said, "the Rams gave up", was totally accurate and was not the result of a late night. Unless you're saying the Rams offense isn't part of the Rams. I'd like to disown it too. Sometimes.

Although the implication was there. But like everything else in life the total is the sum of the parts.

 

[Alan]

kurtfaulk not addressing my main point:
he d has been lights out the last three weeks. when i was trying to remember the cards game i thought the they scored less than 20 points until i realised they put up 31.

So you didn't expect the Rams to have a top 5-10 defense this year? If you did expect us to continue with the way our D was playing last year but with the added improvement of possibly the best DT in the NFL added to the mix then how much of that was predicated on the addition of GW?