Suuuhhhhh

[-X-]

And you interject sack percentage as if it answers QB protection.....which it doesn't. Odd you won't address hits and and hurries with your stats!

See, now you're just flailing. Is there a better way to determine if a QB is protected? And there's nothing odd about me not compiling every shred of data for you on this. I mean, use your head. If a QB isn't getting sacked as much as 20 other teams, what are the odds he's getting hit more than any other team?

I have no problem blaming McD for a good amount of abuse SB has been subjected to as I never was in favor of McD in the first place. I thought the Rams shouldn't have allowed Shurmur to leave (I know unlikely since promotion) or have gotten a rock solid commitment from him NOT TO LEAVE for at least 2 years....or at a minimum get some freaking compensation of some kind (which wouldn't be enough!). Plus McD is hired as this genius that this Rams team embarrassed on the road last season! Shit even Martz simplified the offense for a rookie Bulger with a turnstile at RT!

I guess you've conceded the original point. Now you're onto the focus of my problem with the offense as a whole.

Oh and all your reasons given for this years abysmal play at QB.....goes for Bulger at the end too. Notice how SB locks onto the receiver seemingly not even trying to go through his reads. He's flat out missing open WRs now. Look at him leaving the field after the foregone conclusion of another 3 and out. This keeps up and he's Bulger in the making. A unbelievably expensive (1st pick OVERALL) Bulger. A loss this team can't afford. Although 4 years into the process we finally get a bonafide #1 WR! :boing:

That's all well and good, but Bulger doesn't play here anymore, and I don't care about Bulger. You're seemingly in contention with people who don't post here with all this built up animosity over the criticism Bulger received. 4 years in the process? Devaney was the GM in 2009, and Spags was hired in 2009. Relative to the receivers, I laid out (in great detail) the reasons why this team couldn't "get" a bonafide receiver until now. Unless you can name all the marquee wideouts the Rams had the opportunity to sign prior to this year. Can you do that?

 

[Ram Quixote]

I would just like to add regarding Shurmur's departure/promotion, this is one of those unwritten rules among NFL coaches: only real pricks get in the way of a coach's advancement. Martz encouraged Lovie to go for the HC job in Chicago, and we saw how much that hurt the Rams in the next 2 years.

Even if Shurmur had been signed to a third year, I truly doubt the Rams would have held him to it. As for compensation for losing an OC, that kind of thing only happens with HCs under contract.

And while I'm at it, what Ram fan (or insider) thought Shurmur would be a HC target before the 2010 season? I mean, who can look at Shurmur as HC in Cleveland and make that a mistake of the Rams FO?

 

[Anonymous]

I would just like to add regarding Shurmur's departure/promotion, this is one of those unwritten rules among NFL coaches: only real pricks get in the way of a coach's advancement. Martz encouraged Lovie to go for the HC job in Chicago, and we saw how much that hurt the Rams in the next 2 years.

Even if Shurmur had been signed to a third year, I truly doubt the Rams would have held him to it. As for compensation for losing an OC, that kind of thing only happens with HCs under contract.

And while I'm at it, what Ram fan (or insider) thought Shurmur would be a HC target before the 2010 season? I mean, who can look at Shurmur as HC in Cleveland and make that a mistake of the Rams FO?

All true but starting anew with a different OC and system under these conditions is a mistake of the Rams FO.

 

[Anonymous]

And you interject sack percentage as if it answers QB protection.....which it doesn't. Odd you won't address hits and and hurries with your stats!

See, now you're just flailing. Is there a better way to determine if a QB is protected? And there's nothing odd about me not compiling every shred of data for you on this. I mean, use your head. If a QB isn't getting sacked as much as 20 other teams, what are the odds he's getting hit more than any other team?

I have no problem blaming McD for a good amount of abuse SB has been subjected to as I never was in favor of McD in the first place. I thought the Rams shouldn't have allowed Shurmur to leave (I know unlikely since promotion) or have gotten a rock solid commitment from him NOT TO LEAVE for at least 2 years....or at a minimum get some freaking compensation of some kind (which wouldn't be enough!). Plus McD is hired as this genius that this Rams team embarrassed on the road last season! shyte even Martz simplified the offense for a rookie Bulger with a turnstile at RT!

I guess you've conceded the original point. Now you're onto the focus of my problem with the offense as a whole.

Oh and all your reasons given for this years abysmal play at QB.....goes for Bulger at the end too. Notice how SB locks onto the receiver seemingly not even trying to go through his reads. He's flat out missing open WRs now. Look at him leaving the field after the foregone conclusion of another 3 and out. This keeps up and he's Bulger in the making. A unbelievably expensive (1st pick OVERALL) Bulger. A loss this team can't afford. Although 4 years into the process we finally get a bonafide #1 WR! :boing:

That's all well and good, but Bulger doesn't play here anymore, and I don't care about Bulger. You're seemingly in contention with people who don't post here with all this built up animosity over the criticism Bulger received. 4 years in the process? Devaney was the GM in 2009, and Spags was hired in 2009. Relative to the receivers, I laid out (in great detail) the reasons why this team couldn't "get" a bonafide receiver until now. Unless you can name all the marquee wideouts the Rams had the opportunity to sign prior to this year. Can you do that?

Flailing...that's BS and you know it. Hits and hurries are significant. They do matter. They effect QB play especially as the game progresses and thats exactly what we see in the second half. So don't give those stats. I don't care. But you're being disingenuous to claim they don't matter.....so flail on.

Of course Bulger isn't here but the same conditions STILL EXIST that created his exit! And with the Ramspicking so high over the last 4 years of drafts....no there haven't been any successful WRs drafted into the NFL during that time. :roll:

 

[-X-]

Flailing...that's BS and you know it. Hits and hurries are significant. They do matter. They effect QB play especially as the game progresses and thats exactly what we see in the second half. So don't give those stats. I don't care. But you're being disingenuous to claim they don't matter.....so flail on.

Of course Bulger isn't here but the same conditions STILL EXIST that created his exit! And with the Ramspicking so high over the last 4 years of drafts....no there haven't been any successful WRs drafted into the NFL during that time. :roll:

Of course they're significant. I'm telling you that Bradford was the 12th best protected QB in the league in 2010, and you're asking me to find out how much he was hurried. If you want me to trot out hurries and hits as an accompaniment to that, then I'll see what I can do (that's not an easy stat to find). But you're the one being disingenuous if you think the Rams didn't have protection as one of the highest priorities when they drafted Bradford. You're skipping right over 2010 and talking about the 2nd half of 2011 to make your point. Again, disingenuous. The Rams are missing 3 tackles now.

Relative to Bulger, that happens to every QB in the league in various years. Roethlisberger took 47 sacks on his way to winning the SB. Now, if it becomes a THEME, then we'll have a problem. Let me spell it out for you since you seem unable to take a hint. The OFFENSIVE COORDINATOR this year has made the offense completely out of sync, and has exposed the QB to precarious situations. All by himself. HE did that. The offense didn't look like this last year. Bradford wasn't harassed last year. Last year was different than this year. It has nothing to do with the draft strategy, and everything to do with the OC and injuries.

Now. Go ahead and list the receivers the Rams could have drafted (since you now know there weren't any available via FA), and stop going back 4 years. This regime had nothing to do with the 2008 draft. But if you insist on using Linehan and Haslett as the foundation for Devaney, Spagnuolo, Flajole and Shurmur, then I'll start you off. Donny Avery. Now go through the last THREE drafts, and give the Rams a receiver, but take away the guy they picked (e.g., taking Golden Taint instead of Rodger Saffold). I'll go ahead and give you the benefit of hindsight in this practice. You won't find a receiver worth taking, and you'll have weakened another part of the team in the process. So, watch how you draft, yeah? Being a GM isn't as easy as people think it is.

 

[Angry Ram]

Well according to this, <a class="postlink" href="http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2010" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2010</a>

Last year the Rams had the 10th "best" OL when everything was taken into account (opponents, aggressiveness, etc.).

This year, so far it's ranked 28th. <a class="postlink" href="http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol</a>

What's the biggest difference? Injuries, 1st and foremost. When both starting OTs get put on IR, their backup gets hurt. Then the center gets benched.

Quality of opponent. When you have to face a blitz happy Eagles, Packers, Saints teams, the best 4-3 DL in NFL the NYG, a top D w/ probably the best OLB pass rushing DeMarcus Ware, another top D against the Ravens. And yeah, even the Redskins have a good D. You gotta give credit to the opponent, in this case, veteran top opponents.

This line didn't do too bad against teh Browns/Cards. Not until PS guy Hughes went against Clemons did it become to unravel. IDK how much merit that website has, but it is kinda interesting.

 

[-X-]

Well according to this, <a class="postlink" href="http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2010" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2010</a>

Last year the Rams had the 10th "best" OL when everything was taken into account (opponents, aggressiveness, etc.).

This year, so far it's ranked 28th. <a class="postlink" href="http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol</a>

What's the biggest difference? Injuries, 1st and foremost. When both starting OTs get put on IR, their backup gets hurt. Then the center gets benched.

Thanks, man. I knew it was out there somewhere. I'll also add to your list, the fact that the Rams lost their running game 47 seconds into game one. Also, if you're playing from behind AND have no running game, defenses can pretty much tee off on your QB. But, everyone knows that I think.

 

[Anonymous]

Well according to this, <a class="postlink" href="http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2010" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2010</a>

Last year the Rams had the 10th "best" OL when everything was taken into account (opponents, aggressiveness, etc.).

This year, so far it's ranked 28th. <a class="postlink" href="http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol</a>

.

I searched everywhere on that site and couldn't find any indication that hits, hurries, knock downs etc. were used in any O line metric. Since QBs are not machines and teams do give credence to those I stand by my assertion.

 

[-X-]

Well according to this, <a class="postlink" href="http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2010" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2010</a>

Last year the Rams had the 10th "best" OL when everything was taken into account (opponents, aggressiveness, etc.).

This year, so far it's ranked 28th. <a class="postlink" href="http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol</a>

.

I searched everywhere on that site and couldn't find any indication that hits, hurries, knock downs etc. were used in any O line metric. Since QBs are not machines and teams do give credence to those I stand by my assertion.

Of course you do. But how much of this assertion (baseless, by the way) is tied to the Rams getting rid of Marc Bulger?

 

[Angry Ram]

Well according to this, <a class="postlink" href="http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2010" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2010</a>

Last year the Rams had the 10th "best" OL when everything was taken into account (opponents, aggressiveness, etc.).

This year, so far it's ranked 28th. <a class="postlink" href="http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol</a>

What's the biggest difference? Injuries, 1st and foremost. When both starting OTs get put on IR, their backup gets hurt. Then the center gets benched.

Thanks, man. I knew it was out there somewhere. I'll also add to your list, the fact that the Rams lost their running game 47 seconds into game one. Also, if you're playing from behind AND have no running game, defenses can pretty much tee off on your QB. But, everyone knows that I think.

Don't really think so. :ww:

Well according to this, <a class="postlink" href="http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2010" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2010</a>

Last year the Rams had the 10th "best" OL when everything was taken into account (opponents, aggressiveness, etc.).

This year, so far it's ranked 28th. <a class="postlink" href="http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol</a>

.

I searched everywhere on that site and couldn't find any indication that hits, hurries, knock downs etc. were used in any O line metric. Since QBs are not machines and teams do give credence to those I stand by my assertion.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2003/fun-sacks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-a ... /fun-sacks</a>

There is one other problem here. Sacks, of course, are not the only indicator of pass blocking or pass rushing. Sometimes a good pass rush will force the quarterback to scramble. In Hidden Game of Football, Palmer and Carroll list "forced runs" for each defense. I'm not quite sure where they found this number, because unfortunately current play-by-play logs use the word "rushed" to refer to both a planned run by a quarterback and a broken pass play turned into a scramble. Occasionally the NFL.com logs will tell you when a run is a scramble, but sometimes they don't -- it's part of the frustrating inconsistency of NFL play-by-play logs. You can't just count runs by a quarterback, because of course someone like Michael Vick will have more runs than someone like Tom Brady no matter how good the offensive line.

A good pass rush, of course, will also lead to more incomplete passes, but you can't really measure how much of that is caused by the pass rush either. I do have one idea, which is to count the number of incomplete passes with no listed intended receiver. If you think about it, these passes have to be passes thrown out of bounds or batted by the defensive line; either way, they represent a quality pass rush.

Basically, it's impossible to find out a completed pass while hurried doesn't reflect negatively on anyone. But a incomplete pass does.

You just don't know, I sure as hell don't. Besides it seems to me you are demanding perfection, which is fine...that's what coaches do to. But it's simply impossible to field an OL that good that rarely allows hurries, sacks, and gives a QB 5+ seconds in the pocket. It's a team game. And for w/e reason(s) last year both the OL and QB were good, and this year they aren't.

 

[Anonymous]

AR, I read the site and no hits or hurries or knock downs were taken into consideration. To not believe those are an indication of QB protection is ridiculous.

 

[Anonymous]

Well according to this, <a class="postlink" href="http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2010" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2010</a>

Last year the Rams had the 10th "best" OL when everything was taken into account (opponents, aggressiveness, etc.).

This year, so far it's ranked 28th. <a class="postlink" href="http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol</a>

.

I searched everywhere on that site and couldn't find any indication that hits, hurries, knock downs etc. were used in any O line metric. Since QBs are not machines and teams do give credence to those I stand by my assertion.

Of course you do. But how much of this assertion (baseless, by the way) is tied to the Rams getting rid of Marc Bulger?

Not baseless and AGAIN a 2009 Bulger is the likely end game for an unprotected SB.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Well according to this, <a class="postlink" href="http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2010" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2010</a>

Last year the Rams had the 10th "best" OL when everything was taken into account (opponents, aggressiveness, etc.).

This year, so far it's ranked 28th. <a class="postlink" href="http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol</a>

.

I searched everywhere on that site and couldn't find any indication that hits, hurries, knock downs etc. were used in any O line metric. Since QBs are not machines and teams do give credence to those I stand by my assertion.

Of course you do. But how much of this assertion (baseless, by the way) is tied to the Rams getting rid of Marc Bulger?

Not baseless and AGAIN a 2009 Bulger is the likely end game for an unprotected SB.

Not really, Bradford has more passion and drive for the game that Bulger ever did. It's not a knock on Bulger either, Bradford just has a lot more.

 

[-X-]

Whatever, man. Let's just go with your theory that the Rams drafted Bradford and didn't provide him with any protection.
Because SO many other people share that sentiment.

 

[Anonymous]

Well according to this, <a class="postlink" href="http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2010" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2010</a>

Last year the Rams had the 10th "best" OL when everything was taken into account (opponents, aggressiveness, etc.).

This year, so far it's ranked 28th. <a class="postlink" href="http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol</a>

.

I searched everywhere on that site and couldn't find any indication that hits, hurries, knock downs etc. were used in any O line metric. Since QBs are not machines and teams do give credence to those I stand by my assertion.

Of course you do. But how much of this assertion (baseless, by the way) is tied to the Rams getting rid of Marc Bulger?

Not baseless and AGAIN a 2009 Bulger is the likely end game for an unprotected SB.

Not really, Bradford has more passion and drive for the game that Bulger ever did. It's not a knock on Bulger either, Bradford just has a lot more.

Last time I watched SB interviewed he reminded me of Bulger in his demeanor.....one of hopeless dejection. But nice to know you know Bulger so well.

 

[Anonymous]

Whatever, man. Let's just go with your theory that the Rams drafted Bradford and didn't provide him with any protection.
Because SO many other people share that sentiment.

Certainly not enough protection. Certainly not veteran protection either. Learn on the job while protecting the #1 OVERALL QB.

 

[Angry Ram]

Well according to this, <a class="postlink" href="http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2010" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2010</a>

Last year the Rams had the 10th "best" OL when everything was taken into account (opponents, aggressiveness, etc.).

This year, so far it's ranked 28th. <a class="postlink" href="http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol</a>

.

I searched everywhere on that site and couldn't find any indication that hits, hurries, knock downs etc. were used in any O line metric. Since QBs are not machines and teams do give credence to those I stand by my assertion.

Of course you do. But how much of this assertion (baseless, by the way) is tied to the Rams getting rid of Marc Bulger?

Not baseless and AGAIN a 2009 Bulger is the likely end game for an unprotected SB.

Not really, Bradford has more passion and drive for the game that Bulger ever did. It's not a knock on Bulger either, Bradford just has a lot more.

Last time I watched SB interviewed he reminded me of Bulger in his demeanor.....one of hopeless dejection. But nice to know you know Bulger so well.

Nice to know you know how Sam feels inside so well.

 

[-X-]

Whatever, man. Let's just go with your theory that the Rams drafted Bradford and didn't provide him with any protection.
Because SO many other people share that sentiment.

Certainly not enough protection. Certainly not veteran protection either. Learn on the job while protecting the #1 OVERALL QB.

Like I said. "Whatever, man."

Stats and evidence to the contrary obviously means very little to people who can repeat a mantra.

 

[Anonymous]

Well according to this, <a class="postlink" href="http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2010" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2010</a>

Last year the Rams had the 10th "best" OL when everything was taken into account (opponents, aggressiveness, etc.).

This year, so far it's ranked 28th. <a class="postlink" href="http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol</a>

.

I searched everywhere on that site and couldn't find any indication that hits, hurries, knock downs etc. were used in any O line metric. Since QBs are not machines and teams do give credence to those I stand by my assertion.

Of course you do. But how much of this assertion (baseless, by the way) is tied to the Rams getting rid of Marc Bulger?

Not baseless and AGAIN a 2009 Bulger is the likely end game for an unprotected SB.

Not really, Bradford has more passion and drive for the game that Bulger ever did. It's not a knock on Bulger either, Bradford just has a lot more.

Last time I watched SB interviewed he reminded me of Bulger in his demeanor.....one of hopeless dejection. But nice to know you know Bulger so well.

Nice to know you know how Sam feels inside so well.

I don't know anything about how he feels "inside". I do know he was the picture of hopeless dejection after this last game. As Rams fans we've seen that before.

 

[Anonymous]

Whatever, man. Let's just go with your theory that the Rams drafted Bradford and didn't provide him with any protection.
Because SO many other people share that sentiment.

Certainly not enough protection. Certainly not veteran protection either. Learn on the job while protecting the #1 OVERALL QB.

Like I said. "Whatever, man."

Stats and evidence to the contrary obviously means very little to people who can repeat a mantra.

Says you who doesn't believe a QB being hit is germane to his O line protection!