- Joined
- Nov 3, 2013
- Messages
- 41,672
Actually they have him this year whether they resign him or not.If they can re-sign him.
Actually they have him this year whether they resign him or not.If they can re-sign him.
Lol pff
As for what went wrong just link them our hundreds of vent threads.
hundreds? I only remember 7 from this season
And every week there were another 10 or more threads started and sometimes merged though not always with the vent threads on individuals who wanted their own vent thread.hundreds? I only remember 7 from this season
Their analysis of Ramsey (including Ramsey vs. Peters) is ridiculous because it's done in a complete vacuum and further highlights some of PFF's well-known flaws. One need only look at the dramatic increase in our sack #'s after Ramsey was added to the D.
All that I know, is that I felt Marcus Peters was a player that every defense was waiting to exploit. Ramsey is a predator. We are better with Ramsey and without Peters...Also, Ramsey is a #1 man cover corner. Peters is a #2 off cover/zone corner. Different animals.
It's almost like trying to compare a 4-3 DE and a 3-4 DE. Kinda the same, but lots different, too.
Also, Peters went BACK to doing what he was familiar with while Ramsey had much more to learn.
And bravo on pointing out the sacks. That's right on.
It's good to have a bigger picture conversation on the subject, I think.
Yes, the offensive line wasn't good enough - we can talk about that all day - let's move past it for this.
Goff was not good under pressure - sure, we can blame the OL for that, but all QBs deal with pressure at some point - the defense can always send more than we have to block if they want to. I don't know how they are getting their numbers, but it does jive with the "eye test" - Goff often threw the ball away, threw inaccurately to a WR, or threw an INT when facing pressure - yes, the OL needs to improve, but so does Goff. Part of paying a QB that money is that you end up losing pro bowl caliber guards like Rodger Saffold, so there has to be some improvement to cover up the roster holes.
How did Peters grade out in run defense. He was without a doubt the most uncommitted tackler I have ever seen as a starting defensive player. It was embarrassing to watch him on roller skates running away from ball carriers trying to tackle everyone with only his arms. Ramsey is 10X the physical player and run defender that Peters is. I do admit the trade to the Ravens did seem to suit Peters well on his pass coverage.Their analysis of Ramsey (including Ramsey vs. Peters) is ridiculous because it's done in a complete vacuum and further highlights some of PFF's well-known flaws. One need only look at the dramatic increase in our sack #'s after Ramsey was added to the D.
It's good to have a bigger picture conversation on the subject, I think.
Yes, the offensive line wasn't good enough - we can talk about that all day - let's move past it for this.
Goff was not good under pressure - sure, we can blame the OL for that, but all QBs deal with pressure at some point - the defense can always send more than we have to block if they want to. I don't know how they are getting their numbers, but it does jive with the "eye test" - Goff often threw the ball away, threw inaccurately to a WR, or threw an INT when facing pressure - yes, the OL needs to improve, but so does Goff. Part of paying a QB that money is that you end up losing pro bowl caliber guards like Rodger Saffold, so there has to be some improvement to cover up the roster holes.
Actually they have him this year whether they resign him or not.
They can so far as I'm aware.Don’t want the Rams to have to do it but can they tag Ramsey if they can’t re-sign him after next season? I thought I read somewhere that they can’t. Personally, I hope they sign him to a Long Term contract but will the Rams have the cap space???
Defenses were dialed into the tendencies, playbook etc and knew what was coming making things difficult for Goff and everyone else on the field. David Edwards or Jackie Slater...wouldn't have mattered much IMO.