What is the first thing a football team has to do?

[had]

Yeah, I forgot how easy it is to find and draft Steven Jacksons.

True.

But SJ is not a singular talent.

I would prefer you answer the original question. I may have missed your answer.

 

[HometownBoy]

Yeah, I forgot how easy it is to find and draft Steven Jacksons.

True.

But SJ is not a singular talent.

I would prefer you answer the original question. I may have missed your answer.

Which original question? What should we do first? Run the ball as my original posts stated.

Other than that you'll have to elaborate for me, because I've answered your other question. Steven Jacksons don't come around every time, if it was really that easy why would any team have RB issues at all?

Teams like the Jets that went to the AFC game last year had great running games, but then their pass fizzled out and their running game followed shortly behind. Teams simply stacked the box and shut their run down and there was nowhere to go.

We aren't the league we were years ago, there just aren't that many hard runners who burst through whatever crappy O-line they get now a days.

 

[DR RAM]

Not if they can't stop the team that can run the ball :hehe:

Absolutes and all. High end stuff. Maybe not too helpful.

But Dr. Ram, did you know that the Bradford pic in you signature makes him look like a mannequin with a cracked arm?

I've been trying to tell you.

Maybe the losing streak is my fault. I'll change it. You smirk at absolutes, but that is what you are offering...can't have it both ways.

Absolutes don't work any way you put them. You need a solid team, because if you don't, other teams are way too smart not to find your weakness. Good teams will thrive on your weakness.

I would go with controlling the trenches. One thing means nothing to me.

 

[RamzFanz]

Score OR stop the other team from scoring.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Being the most aggressive team and stuffing it right down they're throats - running the football

 

[had]

Not if they can't stop the team that can run the ball :hehe:

Absolutes and all. High end stuff. Maybe not too helpful.

But Dr. Ram, did you know that the Bradford pic in you signature makes him look like a mannequin with a cracked arm?

I've been trying to tell you.

Maybe the losing streak is my fault. I'll change it. You smirk at absolutes, but that is what you are offering...can't have it both ways.

Absolutes don't work any way you put them. You need a solid team, because if you don't, other teams are way too smart not to find your weakness. Good teams will thrive on your weakness.

I would go with controlling the trenches. One thing means nothing to me.

Well done with the sig pic. Looks good now!

Not smirking at absolutes. The obvious answer is 'need a complete team'. The questions begs an absolute, but i think it's still an interesting question. What is the first thing?

Best.

 

[DR RAM]

Not if they can't stop the team that can run the ball :hehe:

Absolutes and all. High end stuff. Maybe not too helpful.

But Dr. Ram, did you know that the Bradford pic in you signature makes him look like a mannequin with a cracked arm?

I've been trying to tell you.

Maybe the losing streak is my fault. I'll change it. You smirk at absolutes, but that is what you are offering...can't have it both ways.

Absolutes don't work any way you put them. You need a solid team, because if you don't, other teams are way too smart not to find your weakness. Good teams will thrive on your weakness.

I would go with controlling the trenches. One thing means nothing to me.

Well done with the sig pic. Looks good now!

Not smirking at absolutes. The obvious answer is 'need a complete team'. The questions begs an absolute, but i think it's still an interesting question. What is the first thing?

Best.

Very good question. Not easy to answer from my experience. If I can't use trenches, then I will go with other...sustainability, or stability.

If I had to pick an absolute, I would be more specific, and say, be able to run the ball, when the other team knows that you are running the ball. Why, because if the next answer is stopping the run, then I could say that, the other team may still be able to pass it willingly.

 

[had]

Being the most aggressive team and stuffing it right down they're throats - running the football

Well, can a team win if they can't stop the run?

I think a team can win if they can't run. But if they can't stop the run?

 

[Mojo Ram]

If you had to say that one thing was the most important thing for a football team, one thing that you had to accomplish, what would it be?

--Stopping the pass?
--Throwing the ball?
--Running the ball?
--Stopping the run?
--Other?

For me, it's stopping the run. That's where I plant my flag.

Controlling both sides of the line of scrimmage.

 

[HometownBoy]

Being the most aggressive team and stuffing it right down they're throats - running the football

Well, can a team win if they can't stop the run?

I think a team can win if they can't run. But if they can't stop the run?

Doesn't that contradict itself, those two statements? That you can win without a run, but you have to stop the run to win?

 

[-X-]

Being the most aggressive team and stuffing it right down they're throats - running the football

Well, can a team win if they can't stop the run?

I think a team can win if they can't run. But if they can't stop the run?

Sure. Why not? What if that team that can't stop the run can throw for 400 yards a game? I'd venture to guess that the team that was running successfully would soon have to abandon that approach against an offense like that.

There's just no "one" answer to this one.

 

[had]

If I had to pick an absolute, I would be more specific, and say, be able to run the ball, when the other team knows that you are running the ball. Why, because if the next answer is stopping the run, then I could say that, the other team may still be able to pass it willingly.

I would say that if the one team can stop the run, they can then stop the pass. Cut off the head, so to speak.

And if there's one team that can run and another team that can stop the run, the tie goes to the defender.

You sig pic is now empowering Ram nation. Thank you.

 

[had]

Sure. Why not? What if that team that can't stop the run can throw for 400 yards a game? I'd venture to guess that the team that was running successfully would soon have to abandon that approach against an offense like that.

There's just no "one" answer to this one.

Maybe there is no 'one' answer. Or maybe there is.

In your scenario, the team that can't stop the run can throw for 400 yards a game.

When would they get the ball?

 

[-X-]

Sure. Why not? What if that team that can't stop the run can throw for 400 yards a game? I'd venture to guess that the team that was running successfully would soon have to abandon that approach against an offense like that.

There's just no "one" answer to this one.

Maybe there is no 'one' answer. Or maybe there is.

In your scenario, the team that can't stop the run can throw for 400 yards a game.

When would they get the ball?

Immediately. If they can't stop the run, then your team is gonna break off 80 yard gainers every time, right?
lol. This is futile.

Anyway, here's where Fisher stands on your question.

"We’re gonna have to ... adjust our offensive philosophy to I think what’s probably better suited for us right now — and that’s to hand it off. And then everything else spins off of that.”

If that's insufficient, then I guess it doesn't really matter what we think if every answer but yours is wrong anyway. :sly:

 

[DR RAM]

Sure. Why not? What if that team that can't stop the run can throw for 400 yards a game? I'd venture to guess that the team that was running successfully would soon have to abandon that approach against an offense like that.

There's just no "one" answer to this one.

Maybe there is no 'one' answer. Or maybe there is.

In your scenario, the team that can't stop the run can throw for 400 yards a game.

When would they get the ball?

Immediately. If they can't stop the run, then your team is gonna break off 80 yard gainers every time, right?
lol. This is futile.

Anyway, here's where Fisher stands on your question.

"We’re gonna have to ... adjust our offensive philosophy to I think what’s probably better suited for us right now — and that’s to hand it off. And then everything else spins off of that.”

If that's insufficient, then I guess it doesn't really matter what we think if every answer but yours is wrong anyway. :sly:

Was Fisher watching the game? More suited to handing it off???? I'm so damn confused :?!:

I'm hurtin for certain...pick this up tomorrow.

Go Rams.

 

[had]

Immediately. If they can't stop the run, then your team is gonna break off 80 yard gainers every time, right?
lol. This is futile.

Anyway, here's where Fisher stands on your question.

"We’re gonna have to ... adjust our offensive philosophy to I think what’s probably better suited for us right now — and that’s to hand it off. And then everything else spins off of that.”

If that's insufficient, then I guess it doesn't really matter what we think if every answer but yours is wrong anyway. :sly:

We need to hand it off to a running attack averaging 1 ypc. 1.2? 1.4?

The Rams can win, I believe, with this offense, but not by featuring the run.

If they can't stop the run, they're lost. Death spiral.

But you're right, I'm not right. Or wrong. Just talking.

 

[jrry32]

Score more than the other team.

 

[-X-]

Immediately. If they can't stop the run, then your team is gonna break off 80 yard gainers every time, right?
lol. This is futile.

Anyway, here's where Fisher stands on your question.

"We’re gonna have to ... adjust our offensive philosophy to I think what’s probably better suited for us right now — and that’s to hand it off. And then everything else spins off of that.”

If that's insufficient, then I guess it doesn't really matter what we think if every answer but yours is wrong anyway. :sly:

We need to hand it off to a running attack averaging 1 ypc. 1.2? 1.4?

The Rams can win, I believe, with this offense, but not by featuring the run.

If they can't stop the run, they're lost. Death spiral.

But you're right, I'm not right. Or wrong. Just talking.

Well, clearly his intent isn't to keep the same YPC. I'm guessing he wants to establish the running game and get it going via better blocking and better scheming. And he's not saying that's how you win. He said everything else spins off of that. Play action, less defenders in coverage, pressure off of the QB, etc.

 

[had]

Immediately. If they can't stop the run, then your team is gonna break off 80 yard gainers every time, right?
lol. This is futile.

Anyway, here's where Fisher stands on your question.

"We’re gonna have to ... adjust our offensive philosophy to I think what’s probably better suited for us right now — and that’s to hand it off. And then everything else spins off of that.”

If that's insufficient, then I guess it doesn't really matter what we think if every answer but yours is wrong anyway. :sly:

We need to hand it off to a running attack averaging 1 ypc. 1.2? 1.4?

The Rams can win, I believe, with this offense, but not by featuring the run.

If they can't stop the run, they're lost. Death spiral.

But you're right, I'm not right. Or wrong. Just talking.

Well, clearly his intent isn't to keep the same YPC. I'm guessing he wants to establish the running game and get it going via better blocking and better scheming. And he's not saying that's how you win. He said everything else spins off of that. Play action, less defenders in coverage, pressure off of the QB, etc.

Well, the Rams run game has been stuffed, and you see the ramifications. They could play action now, but the other team is sitting on everything. With glee. The opposing defense is gleefully teeing off.

Because they stopped the run.

Which could lead you to say that the first thing is that a team has to run the ball.

lol

g'night

 

[-X-]

I'm never gonna get that hour of my life back.