Vermeil on Rams v AZ: "Defense wasn't good enough; no choice but to stick with Bradford."

[-X-]

We held them to 12 points which has us currently ranked #1 in offensive points allowed. But i guess after two straight shutouts 12 points is too much...

You do have a flair for the dramatics, eh? lol. How about just hearing what he's saying instead.

Nobody said it was too much, and there's some merit to the idea that defenses get worn down after a while if the offense isn't producing. But this is a very good and very proud defense and even they said they should have done more. I won't fault them for this loss, but I do see where they're coming from. The defense isn't just an accompaniment to the offense. They should strive to be the best unit on the field out of the 3. As should the offense, and as should special teams. When the 99 Rams lost to Tennessee and Detroit in back to back games because the defense allowed 55 points and the offense scored only 48, don't you think the offense thought that they could have done more, even though they scored a lot anyway? If you wanna consider yourself to be elite, then be elite. If they fall short of that (even by a little), then I don't fault them for saying so. I think it's admirable.

 

[MrMotes]

Where are you seeing this?

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/opponent-offensive-points-per-game

Keep in mind nobody else has played this week's game yet. We were third before the AZ game...

 

[Mojo Ram]

Constant 3 and outs don't play well for any defense.
I'm impressed they played as well as they did.

Me too. They did their job despite being fatigued late in the game on a short week.
The time of possession was actually even worse than the final number (34:25 to 26:36). I was watching it most of the game. The Rams putting together some late first downs padded an already lopsided TOP.

 

[MrMotes]

You do have a flair for the dramatics, eh? lol. How about just hearing what he's saying instead.

Nobody said it was too much, and there's some merit to the idea that defenses get worn down after a while if the offense isn't producing. But this is a very good and very proud defense and even they said they should have done more. I won't fault them for this loss, but I do see where they're coming from. The defense isn't just an accompaniment to the offense. They should strive to be the best unit on the field out of the 3. As should the offense, and as should special teams. When the 99 Rams lost to Tennessee and Detroit in back to back games because the defense allowed 55 points and the offense scored only 48, don't you think the offense thought that they could have done more, even though they scored a lot anyway? If you wanna consider yourself to be elite, then be elite. If they fall short of that (even by a little), then I don't fault them for saying so. I think it's admirable.

I'm glad this defense strives to be elite and they are, by far, the best unit on the team, arguably the best defense in the NFL. Personally, i can't find any fault when they only give up 12 points. (Scoring 6 is a different story.)

On a slightly different subject, this is one of the reasons i would've gone for it on 4th and goal from the one. Even if we hadn't gotten it (and there's certainly a good chance of that) we'd have left AZ on their own one with their 3rd string QB putting our best unit in prime position to make a game changing play. A safety there and it's a one score game with AZ kicking the ball back to us...

 

[-X-]

On a slightly different subject, this is one of the reasons i would've gone for it on 4th and goal from the one. Even if we hadn't gotten it (and there's certainly a good chance of that) we'd have left AZ on their own one with their 3rd string QB putting our best unit in prime position to make a game changing play. A safety there and it's a one score game with AZ kicking the ball back to us...

Good points. Candy and nuts, though.

 

[MrMotes]

Good points. Candy and nuts, though.

In either case, odds were we were gonna lose. I just think they would've been a little more in our favor going for it...

 

[-X-]

In either case, odds were we were gonna lose. I just think they would've been a little more in our favor going for it...

Would you have been okay if they failed to convert and AZ had been able to freely move the ball due to the defense being gassed?

 

[LACHAMP46]

All good points....Didn't see Vermeil's comments, but 143 is too much on the ground....offense still didn't help...not a bit...shoulda went for the TD when we were close...

 

[LesBaker]

getting tired of the live and die by the blitz crap.they would blitz two guys in the same gap and just stuff each other letting the RB cut back on a run for a big chunk. if the blitz won't get it done then Williams should have backed off and played coverage wich lets the linebackers find the ball and also makes Stanton or whoever have to take extra time in the pocket. crap job by Williams IMO refusing to adapt

If his defense gave up 12 points every game I'd be posting about how the Rams should sign him to a 10 year deal.

 

[MrMotes]

Would you have been okay if they failed to convert and AZ had been able to freely move the ball due to the defense being gassed?

Well no, 'cause then we'd lose. I'm never okay with losing.

But i wouldn't second guess the call based on how it turned out, i'm not like that. And BTW, no matter what Fisher does there and no matter how it goes, the defense is coming back on the field with the same amount of rest.

I know people are giving Shotty a hard time over the 3rd and goal call and you know what i think of him, but i had no problem with that call. Play action at the goal line is common and works a good percentage of the time, often the receiver is wide open. AZ was all over it and the play failed miserably but i don't question the call.

So i guess you'll have to take my word for it but i'm not questioning the FG because we ended up losing. I'm questioning it because i thought it gave us less of a chance to win the game. And like i said, the odds were against us regardless, just less so, imo, if we go for it...

 

[-X-]

But i wouldn't second guess the call based on how it turned out

That's all I wanted to know.

I know people are giving Shotty a hard time over the 3rd and goal call and you know what i think of him, but i had no problem with that call. Play action at the goal line is common and works a good percentage of the time, often the receiver is wide open. AZ was all over it and the play failed miserably but i don't question the call.

That's good to know too.

 

[V3]

Our defense was on the field all night, despite getting AZ's offense off the field all night. Think about that.

I've already said in other threads I don't blame the D. I'm just saying that it's going to have to do more than it's fair share if the offense is going to play like that-which it will until we get a QB. Again, I'm not blaming the D. But if the O can't cut it, it means the D is going to have to play perfect, similar to what the defenses had to do in Baltimore and TB.

 

[kurtfaulk]

In either case, odds were we were gonna lose. I just think they would've been a little more in our favor going for it...

here's the thing. the d did it's job after that, the rams got the ball and were moving down the field then hill misses a wide open bailey on a 3rd down play which may have had the rams inside the cards 30 again. hill was off all game and with minimal rushing yards that's a recipe for failure.

.

 

[MrMotes]

here's the thing. the d did it's job after that, the rams got the ball and were moving down the field then hill misses a wide open bailey on a 3rd down play which may have had the rams inside the cards 30 again. hill was off all game and with minimal rushing yards that's a recipe for failure.

.

So why not go for it on 4th and 1 and if you can't punch it in, let your defense have a crack at scoring with Ryan Lindley backed up on his own 1 yard line?

 

[kurtfaulk]

So why not go for it on 4th and 1 and if you can't punch it in, let your defense have a crack at scoring with Ryan Lindley backed up on his own 1 yard line?

i wouldn't have minded either way they went. i'm just saying the way they went worked to a degree. hill let the team down at the end there.

.

 

[Merlin]

I think what Vermiel was alluding to was the Rams' run defense. DV has always been big on stopping the run. Rams' defense in '99, btw, was ridiculously outstanding in that way.

The difference in that game was that Arizona ran the ball better. I do think we got outplayed at QB too, but whatever before he got injured Stanton simply made plays so I don't blame the rush overall they almost had him so many times. The primary issue was the Rams not being able to penetrate and blow up the AZ running game.

Where I differ from Vermiel is I am pi$$ed about the Rams offense. Hill is a backup, sure, but he's capable if the OL doesn't get trucked on every single play. And as I mentioned before I think some of their issues were scheme, too, by simply not anticipating what the Cards do with their run and pass blitzes and having the OL ready for them.

Cards sure had their extensive list of backups and backups of backups ready to play. But anyway. Hats off to Arians and his staff, IMO. Far as I am concerned we cannot argue that they outcoached Fish and his staff, but that's hardly a surprise given what they did last year.

 

[-X-]

I think what Vermiel was alluding to was the Rams' run defense

Yeah. That's exactly what he said.

 

[Loyal]

I'm glad this defense strives to be elite and they are, by far, the best unit on the team, arguably the best defense in the NFL. Personally, i can't find any fault when they only give up 12 points. (Scoring 6 is a different story.)

On a slightly different subject, this is one of the reasons i would've gone for it on 4th and goal from the one. Even if we hadn't gotten it (and there's certainly a good chance of that) we'd have left AZ on their own one with their 3rd string QB putting our best unit in prime position to make a game changing play. A safety there and it's a one score game with AZ kicking the ball back to us...

For me, it seemed that 4th and 1 play was one we should have gone for.....I can't remember another opportunity before that where we were so close to scoring a TD...What did we do previously in the game that gave Fisher the confidence that we could just march on down there and get a TD on the last drive? It would have been a game ending play if we didn't make it(TD instead of FG)..But if we had scored a TD, that last Legatron FG would have been much more possible.....,I guess it doesn't matter now, but I hate that we gave Ariens the opportunity to pop off..I now officially hate that bastid.

 

[MrMotes]

I think what Vermiel was alluding to was the Rams' run defense. DV has always been big on stopping the run. Rams' defense in '99, btw, was ridiculously outstanding in that way.

Well that certainly wasn't the case in KC.

And as i recall, our number one defense against the run in '99 was the offense. Teams fell behind so quickly they had no choice but to abandon the run...

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

I wanted them to go for it on 4th and 1. I had the same thinking as Mr. Motes. If the Cards get the ball back it is on the one yard line and the Rams D was still getting push and making plays. One run stuff or sack really would change the momentum. The Rams offense lacked momentum for most of the game. At that point it was like the fake punt against Seattle to me. You had to do it.