Rams Vs. Seahawks: Gray's Grades (101ESPN/101sports.com)

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

STL-Rams

Starter
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
917
Shane Gray provides special Rams commentaries on 101sports.com. Follow him on Twitter @ShaneGmoSTLRams.

Quarterback

St. Louis Rams quarterback Kellen Clemens faced a most precarious position heading into the Monday night tilt against the Seattle Seahawks, as he was not only preparing to make his first start since the 2011 season but was readying to do so against one of the premier defensive units in the NFL.

Prior to the St. Louis game, Seattle’s defense was giving up just 16.6 points per game, third-best in the league.

Even worse, Clemens was going up against what many consider to be the best secondary in the game and an overall pass defense that was producing eye-popping numbers.

Specifically, the Seahawks’ air defense ranked first in passer rating relinquished (66.1), second in passing yards allowed per attempt (6.2), second in passing touchdowns given up (six), third in yards allowed per game (191), fourth in interceptions (11), seventh in completion percentage allowed (58.5) and eighth in sacks (23).

Against the run they have also impressed, tying for fifth in the league in yards allowed per rush (3.7) and seventh in yards per game (91.6).

In short, Clemens was charged with the task of succeeding against one of the league’s elite defenses.

In the end, the results were mixed at best.

On the evening, Clemens completed 15 of 31 passes (48 percent) for 158 yards, no touchdowns and two interceptions and just a 36.8 passer rating. At times, he would have been better served to accept the checkdowns rather than trying to force it downfield so consistently.

Most analysts have tried to peg at least one of his two turnovers on a Rams wide receiver, but either way, going 15 for 31 with a an abysmal 36.8 passer rating is far from getting it done.

And Clemens had the immense advantage of playing with a run game that produced over 200 yards, which forced the Seattle defense to focus additional attention on the St. Louis ground attack.

Even with the pristine rushing performance, Clemens struggled to connect with receivers or take advantage of play-action opportunities.

His most costly incompletion may have occurred on the contest’s final play when he failed to connect with wide receiver Brian Quick.

“They sold out from a defensive standpoint, they brought everybody and so the best option we had was Quicky,” Clemens said. “(CB Brandon) Browner made a good play, (and it) seemed like a pretty physical play. Loved to have put the ball in a little bit different spot, but didn’t have a lot of time to assess it because they brought one more than we could block.”

In the end, Clemens summed up his outing well when grading himself following the 14-9 loss.

“I think in this business unfortunately your grade scale is pass or fail,” Clemens said. “Incidentally, so were most of my classes in college. Unfortunately I think this one’s a fail. It’s a business of wins and losses, so we’ve got to get better.”

My grade will be slightly more generous considering the aforementioned strength of the Seahawks’ defense and the fact that it was Clemens first start in nearly two years.

Grade: D

Running Back

(Hope you all enjoy the full piece below with shorter sections for the other positions)

http://www.101sports.com/2013/10/31/rams-vs-seahawks-grays-grades-st-louis-showdown/
 

V3

Hall of Fame
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Messages
3,848
Nice summary. Can't argue with much, if anything.

I wonder if the D's performance had more to do with the defensive coaching scheme- that being more aggressive- or if it was more about the players actually playing the best they've played all year?
 

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
48,082
Name
Burger man
I like your grade articles, Shane.

I agree with most.

But; I can't see 101yds by the WR as C+ worthy. I do think the game plan for the WR's was partly to blame (where was Quick in this one? Austin MIA again? Does Schotty have a plan for these guys, or what?).

The biggest exception I take is with B+ for coaching. I can't see anything greater than a C in a loss - and even that is a stretch in my book. You coach to win. Sure the defensive coaching was great, but they didn't pitch a shutout. And... 9 pts by the offense? Against a good defense... that's still bad, regardless of a good running game.
 

STL-Rams

Starter
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
917
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
Nice summary. Can't argue with much, if anything.

I wonder if the D's performance had more to do with the defensive coaching scheme- that being more aggressive- or if it was more about the players actually playing the best they've played all year?

I think the scheme was a BIG part of it, personally, and I think Fisher had more than a little to say about the adjustments.
 

STL-Rams

Starter
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
917
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
I like your grade articles, Shane.

I agree with most.

But; I can't see 101yds by the WR as C+ worthy. I do think the game plan for the WR's was partly to blame (where was Quick in this one? Austin MIA again? Does Schotty have a plan for these guys, or what?).

The biggest exception I take is with B+ for coaching. I can't see anything greater than a C in a loss - and even that is a stretch in my book. You coach to win. Sure the defensive coaching was great, but they didn't pitch a shutout. And... 9 pts by the offense? Against a good defense... that's still bad, regardless of a good running game.

Thank you for the kind words my friend.

I can understand your feelings on the above mentioned grades. I felt the C+ was appropriate due in large part to the inaccuracy of Clemens (48%). That was part of the issue with the yards as was the fact of playing against arguably the best pass D in the NFL vs a backup QB in his first start since the 2011 season. I can understand why you feel -- bottom line -- that 101 yards isn't enough, however.

As for coaching, the Rams were major underdogs facing the league's No. 2 scoring D and No. 1 rushing offense. They came to play but came up short (in my opinion) due in large part to the diminished play at QB (36 rating), more so than coaching. The players were ready to go, the D was dominant, the run game was dominant, the special teams errors were minimized and outside of a couple of horrific offensive calls to end the game, I felt the game calling there was pretty good, too. All in all, I didn't see a lot to blame there (even with the loss). That said, I certainly respect and can see why you feel you shouldn't go above a C in a loss. I just personally feel there can be exceptions on a case-to-case basis.