Why did a couple of players call this offense a WCO

  • 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.

ramsince62

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
2,592
libertadrocks wrote:
I agree with your premise. Schotty is bringing in his Coryell style offense but is tailoring it the the talent we have. We had more success with the WCO in 2010 so he is adding a lot of that stuff to the playbook. I also agree with you that our offense will not be as conservative as 2010. We have more talent now.

Agreed as to being less conservative. However, much will depend upon how effective the running game is. On the surface, it appears we have the horses, but the "proof is in the pudding".

I'm still worried about the QB situation....IMO, we still need a viable replacement for Bradford. A few plays is one thing, whole games is quite another. :?!:
 

Anonymous

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #42
X said:
DR RAM said:
Don't be confused....Pat Shurmer=GOD.

Josh McDaniels=Douche.

That is all this thread was intended.

If you don't get it, stick around, because it will come around.
Well I wouldn't go that far. Pragmatic vs Dogmatic would be more accurate.

And just like the injuries don't explain the ENTIRE picture, nor does McDaniels' perceived inflexibility explain the ENTIRE picture. What we know from last year is that Spagnuolo had to go vanilla when he lost a bunch of players. We also know that McDaniels tried to base his plan around the opponent's weaknesses every week. We know this because both things are documented with direct quotes from both McDaniels and Spagnuolo.

Here's the thing though. Both were right to do so. McDaniels isn't a bad coach, and he's certainly not a douche. Spagnuolo isn't a bad coach and he's certainly not as bad as people make him out to be either. Shurmur is Shurmur. He's got a very base offense and it's very boring. That's already translated in Cleveland. It works with inexperienced and young players though, so yay for that. But also, glad it's over.


HE'S not saying that.

He's saying I'M saying that.
 

Angry Ram

Captain RAmerica Original Rammer
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
18,000
I read through all 5 pages of this, and I came to 1 conclusion:

When it's 1st and goal from the 1...I'd like to see SJack smash it in. And not get cute with shovel passes or fade routes.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
zn said:
X said:
DR RAM said:
Don't be confused....Pat Shurmer=GOD.

Josh McDaniels=Douche.

That is all this thread was intended.

If you don't get it, stick around, because it will come around.
Well I wouldn't go that far. Pragmatic vs Dogmatic would be more accurate.

And just like the injuries don't explain the ENTIRE picture, nor does McDaniels' perceived inflexibility explain the ENTIRE picture. What we know from last year is that Spagnuolo had to go vanilla when he lost a bunch of players. We also know that McDaniels tried to base his plan around the opponent's weaknesses every week. We know this because both things are documented with direct quotes from both McDaniels and Spagnuolo.

Here's the thing though. Both were right to do so. McDaniels isn't a bad coach, and he's certainly not a douche. Spagnuolo isn't a bad coach and he's certainly not as bad as people make him out to be either. Shurmur is Shurmur. He's got a very base offense and it's very boring. That's already translated in Cleveland. It works with inexperienced and young players though, so yay for that. But also, glad it's over.


HE'S not saying that.

He's saying I'M saying that.
I know, and I represented your view for clarification (prag v dog) before I went on with my own opinion. You're of course free to summarize your own opinion in response, but I'd refrain from retort.

For cryin' out loud, the rules aren't written in hieroglyphics. They're really easy to summarize too.
We're all grown men here (and women). Figure out how to act as such and there won't be any problems.

If someone thinks Spagnuolo sucks, go ahead and make your case. If someone thinks McDaniels sucks, then go ahead and make your case. Same with any other PREVIOUS member of this Organization. All we ask is that you do so in an intelligent and intelligible manner while being respectful of someone else's contrary opinion. Similarly, if you think Spagnuolo was good, go ahead and make your case. If you think McDaniels was good, go ahead and make your case. And when it comes to OPINIONS, it's not necessary to try and point out the fallacy of same.

"Chocolate is better than Vanilla."
"No it's not!"
"Yes it is!"
"You're a vanilla hater."
"You're a vanilla homer."

I'm not entertained by that.
 

Anonymous

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #45
X said:
DR RAM said:
Don't be confused....Pat Shurmer=GOD.

Josh McDaniels=Douche.

That is all this thread was intended.

If you don't get it, stick around, because it will come around.
Well I wouldn't go that far. Pragmatic vs Dogmatic would be more accurate.

And just like the injuries don't explain the ENTIRE picture, nor does McDaniels' perceived inflexibility explain the ENTIRE picture. What we know from last year is that Spagnuolo had to go vanilla when he lost a bunch of players. We also know that McDaniels tried to base his plan around the opponent's weaknesses every week. We know this because both things are documented with direct quotes from both McDaniels and Spagnuolo.

Here's the thing though. Both were right to do so. McDaniels isn't a bad coach, and he's certainly not a douche. Spagnuolo isn't a bad coach and he's certainly not as bad as people make him out to be either. Shurmur is Shurmur. He's got a very base offense and it's very boring. That's already translated in Cleveland. It works with inexperienced and young players though, so yay for that. But also, glad it's over.

Here's what I believe to be true. If McDaniels stayed on as offensive coordinator, and had a couple of NORMAL years with this team, the Rams would have been juggernauts. His playcalling is really good and his gameplanning is even better. He just had the same handicap everyone else on the 2011 Rams had. Not enough practice. Now again, I don't like him as a person, but that doesn't cloud my understanding of what he's capable of as a coach. I'm also likely to give the players a little ownership of their inability to execute when the opportunity was there. So I don't see McDaniels as the big offender. I mean, what're we talking about here? He could have lined up in I-formation 100% of the time and run the same 25 plays week in and week out, but that's not how you TRY to win games. You just run the gameplan during the week that you intend to run on Sunday, and you hope it works. If it works in practice, then as an OC, you expect it to work during games. But. That's not always the case with a young team. And the opposition doesn't always run the same gameplan they ran the week prior. It's all a chess match, and when you go up against teams that have had the benefit of being in the same system for years, you never have the upper hand.

Not sure how much of that I agree with. We know about McD's thing about gameplans cause that's an old Patz thing that goes back years.

But it doesn't account for his problems early on. You're also supposed to base gameplans on what your team can do. So for example the Patz never act like they have Steven Jackson even if the defense they are facing would be vulnerable to a big power back like that. And, of course, a team that doesn't get an offense at the installation level isn't going to execute gameplans later. I too agree they would have caught on, but in the meanwhile, he was awfully uncomprehending when it came to where his own players stood.

I don't agree about Shurmur, either...in Cleveland and in St. Louis both he coped with limitations on offense by emphasizing ball control. When he had the players to do more he has done more.

Either way that's all moot cause this thread was never about McD v. Shurmur. In fact that had nothing to do with it.

It's about what Brian's offense is going to look like THIS year. So far we're only making guesses. But one good guess is that they really did go back to 2010 film and take some things from that. Why? Cause Bradford was comfortable with it, instinctively and intuitively. Why is that good? Because we want Bradford to have a base to work from that's instinctive and intuitive and comfortable. It's a confidence builder.

Will Brian the S do more than they did in 2010? You would think so. 2010 was very limited in terms of personnel. Jackson was hobbled, Bradford was a rookie, they had no WRs outside of Danny "short pass" Dola and the inconsistent when available DX, and the tackles were young. Now the tackles are more experienced; they are going to bolster the blocking with schemes that worked before with the Titans, Falcons, and Jets; Bradford has a qb coach and is in his 3rd year, which counts for something even if he's not going to be as in-tune with the system initially as he will later; SJ ought to be healthy; and they have lots of promising young WRs to do things with PLUS have DannyDola back. Fisher, Shottenheimer, and Boudreau have all run successful versions of that kind of offense before. Shottenheimer is now on his 6th major qb as a coach (Brees, Rivers, Pennington, Clemens, Favre, and Sanchez) and knows stuff about that.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Okay, I can no longer figure out what the fuck is going on here anymore, so from now on I'm calling it the "Whatever effing name you wanna call this system I don't care, just put the stupid ball into the damn endzone system."

It's goal is to put the ball into the endzone more than the other team can do it.


If you play the system perfectly, you will win 100% of your games.



Topic: DONE
 

Anonymous

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #47
bluecoconuts said:
Okay, I can no longer figure out what the freak is going on here anymore, so from now on I'm calling it the "Whatever effing name you wanna call this system I don't care, just put the stupid ball into the damn endzone system."

It's goal is to put the ball into the endzone more than the other team can do it.


If you play the system perfectly, you will win 100% of your games.



Topic: DONE

It's simple. This should be the last word, I promise.

Shottenheimer runs a Coryell system.

But nowadays you can run any plays you want with any system.

So he added some plays from 2010.

That's all there is to it, really.

& fwiw the discussion did serve some purpose.

moklerman

Real Rams Fan
Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:47 am
Post subject: Schottenheimer's offense
http://www.realramsfans.com/viewtopic.php?t=69871


I've been going under the presumption that Schottenhemier's offense is a WCO but over on the Ramsondemand board they've got an interesting discussion going that contradicts that thought.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9487

Schottenheimer learned from Cameron who learned from Turner who learned from Zampese who learned from Coryell.

Schottenheimer is basically from the Coryell coaching tree and his offense isn't a WCO at all. It's more of a Dallas/San Diego type of deal as they were under Norv Turner which is the more conservative version of the Coryell base.

Obviously adjustments to personnel will dictate the actual offense but I've been way off about what I thought the offense was based on.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
The topic can continue of course. I'm just saying, my system of "Score more points" is the best one. In fact, the Rams should probably hire me to give motivational speeches to the guys.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
zn said:
X said:
DR RAM said:
Don't be confused....Pat Shurmer=GOD.

Josh McDaniels=Douche.

That is all this thread was intended.

If you don't get it, stick around, because it will come around.
Well I wouldn't go that far. Pragmatic vs Dogmatic would be more accurate.

And just like the injuries don't explain the ENTIRE picture, nor does McDaniels' perceived inflexibility explain the ENTIRE picture. What we know from last year is that Spagnuolo had to go vanilla when he lost a bunch of players. We also know that McDaniels tried to base his plan around the opponent's weaknesses every week. We know this because both things are documented with direct quotes from both McDaniels and Spagnuolo.

Here's the thing though. Both were right to do so. McDaniels isn't a bad coach, and he's certainly not a douche. Spagnuolo isn't a bad coach and he's certainly not as bad as people make him out to be either. Shurmur is Shurmur. He's got a very base offense and it's very boring. That's already translated in Cleveland. It works with inexperienced and young players though, so yay for that. But also, glad it's over.

Here's what I believe to be true. If McDaniels stayed on as offensive coordinator, and had a couple of NORMAL years with this team, the Rams would have been juggernauts. His playcalling is really good and his gameplanning is even better. He just had the same handicap everyone else on the 2011 Rams had. Not enough practice. Now again, I don't like him as a person, but that doesn't cloud my understanding of what he's capable of as a coach. I'm also likely to give the players a little ownership of their inability to execute when the opportunity was there. So I don't see McDaniels as the big offender. I mean, what're we talking about here? He could have lined up in I-formation 100% of the time and run the same 25 plays week in and week out, but that's not how you TRY to win games. You just run the gameplan during the week that you intend to run on Sunday, and you hope it works. If it works in practice, then as an OC, you expect it to work during games. But. That's not always the case with a young team. And the opposition doesn't always run the same gameplan they ran the week prior. It's all a chess match, and when you go up against teams that have had the benefit of being in the same system for years, you never have the upper hand.

Not sure how much of that I agree with. We know about McD's thing about gameplans cause that's an old Patz thing that goes back years.

But it doesn't account for his problems early on. You're also supposed to base gameplans on what your team can do. So for example the Patz never act like they have Steven Jackson even if the defense they are facing would be vulnerable to a big power back like that. And, of course, a team that doesn't get an offense at the installation level isn't going to execute gameplans later. I too agree they would have caught on, but in the meanwhile, he was awfully uncomprehending when it came to where his own players stood.

I don't agree about Shurmur, either...in Cleveland and in St. Louis both he coped with limitations on offense by emphasizing ball control. When he had the players to do more he has done more.

Either way that's all moot cause this thread was never about McD v. Shurmur. In fact that had nothing to do with it.

It's about what Brian's offense is going to look like THIS year. So far we're only making guesses. But one good guess is that they really did go back to 2010 film and take some things from that. Why? Cause Bradford was comfortable with it, instinctively and intuitively. Why is that good? Because we want Bradford to have a base to work from that's instinctive and intuitive and comfortable. It's a confidence builder.

Will Brian the S do more than they did in 2010? You would think so. 2010 was very limited in terms of personnel. Jackson was hobbled, Bradford was a rookie, they had no WRs outside of Danny "short pass" Dola and the inconsistent when available DX, and the tackles were young. Now the tackles are more experienced; they are going to bolster the blocking with schemes that worked before with the Titans, Falcons, and Jets; Bradford has a qb coach and is in his 3rd year, which counts for something even if he's not going to be as in-tune with the system initially as he will later; SJ ought to be healthy; and they have lots of promising young WRs to do things with PLUS have DannyDola back. Fisher, Shottenheimer, and Boudreau have all run successful versions of that kind of offense before. Shottenheimer is now on his 6th major qb as a coach (Brees, Rivers, Pennington, Clemens, Favre, and Sanchez) and knows stuff about that.
Yeah it's fine that we disagree, because it would be too creepy if we agreed about everything.

I know what your discussion was initially about, but it's since evolved (like the Coryell system). My contention is that McDaniels' offense WAS scaled back. There was nothing exotic or confusing about the Eagles game from what I saw. It started out with a rushing touchdown and then we lost that guy. It also had several underneath throws to Amendola and then we lost THAT guy. It also had zone busters that Gibson and Kendricks ran only to have the balls hit them in the hands and fall to the ground. Protection was pretty good despite them having to face a wide-9 for which they weren't prepared, but they moved the ball rather well. It was the same game plan against the Giants and Redskins, and those were running well too. What happened was injury after injury after injury that limited what they could do.

Again, I say they could go ahead and use one formation with 25 plays, but that's like mailing in a loss. You can't expect an offensive coordinator to ONLY draw up bubble screens and 5-yard digs. Now, admittedly, McDaniels did do some goofy shit that defied logic (at the time), but there were reasons for it.

Two examples that keep coming up:

1. The 5-wide sets against Seattle. The argument was that he wasn't protecting Bradford, but not enough people realize that's EXACTLY what lining up 5 wide was supposed to do. Put 5 guys in space, find the hot read or second read and get rid of the ball.

2. Not using Jackson at the goal-line. The argument was Jackson could just pound it in, so why screw around with throwing the ball? What not enough people realized at the time was, there were NO tight-ends available and the offensive line wasn't pushing anyone around the whole game. Execution screwed up what would have otherwise worked, but in the end Jackson came in and punched it in anyway.

So, yeah, he could overthink at times, but it wasn't because he was a stupid coordinator who thought he was smarter than he actually was. He was leaning heavily on the successful practices translating to game day. What derailed THAT was a lack of execution in pressure situations from rookies and a mish-mash of new guys sprinkled in all over the team.

I mean, think about it. Do you honestly believe that the statement "He had no feel for his personnel" holds up to scrutiny? Who would know more about the personnel than the guy who was running them through drills week in and week out? I just feel like sometimes we give professional athletes too much of a pass for being young instead of holding them to a professional standard.
 

Anonymous

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #50
X said:
zn said:
X said:
DR RAM said:
Don't be confused....Pat Shurmer=GOD.

Josh McDaniels=Douche.

That is all this thread was intended.

If you don't get it, stick around, because it will come around.
Well I wouldn't go that far. Pragmatic vs Dogmatic would be more accurate.

And just like the injuries don't explain the ENTIRE picture, nor does McDaniels' perceived inflexibility explain the ENTIRE picture. What we know from last year is that Spagnuolo had to go vanilla when he lost a bunch of players. We also know that McDaniels tried to base his plan around the opponent's weaknesses every week. We know this because both things are documented with direct quotes from both McDaniels and Spagnuolo.

Here's the thing though. Both were right to do so. McDaniels isn't a bad coach, and he's certainly not a douche. Spagnuolo isn't a bad coach and he's certainly not as bad as people make him out to be either. Shurmur is Shurmur. He's got a very base offense and it's very boring. That's already translated in Cleveland. It works with inexperienced and young players though, so yay for that. But also, glad it's over.

Here's what I believe to be true. If McDaniels stayed on as offensive coordinator, and had a couple of NORMAL years with this team, the Rams would have been juggernauts. His playcalling is really good and his gameplanning is even better. He just had the same handicap everyone else on the 2011 Rams had. Not enough practice. Now again, I don't like him as a person, but that doesn't cloud my understanding of what he's capable of as a coach. I'm also likely to give the players a little ownership of their inability to execute when the opportunity was there. So I don't see McDaniels as the big offender. I mean, what're we talking about here? He could have lined up in I-formation 100% of the time and run the same 25 plays week in and week out, but that's not how you TRY to win games. You just run the gameplan during the week that you intend to run on Sunday, and you hope it works. If it works in practice, then as an OC, you expect it to work during games. But. That's not always the case with a young team. And the opposition doesn't always run the same gameplan they ran the week prior. It's all a chess match, and when you go up against teams that have had the benefit of being in the same system for years, you never have the upper hand.

Not sure how much of that I agree with. We know about McD's thing about gameplans cause that's an old Patz thing that goes back years.

But it doesn't account for his problems early on. You're also supposed to base gameplans on what your team can do. So for example the Patz never act like they have Steven Jackson even if the defense they are facing would be vulnerable to a big power back like that. And, of course, a team that doesn't get an offense at the installation level isn't going to execute gameplans later. I too agree they would have caught on, but in the meanwhile, he was awfully uncomprehending when it came to where his own players stood.

I don't agree about Shurmur, either...in Cleveland and in St. Louis both he coped with limitations on offense by emphasizing ball control. When he had the players to do more he has done more.

Either way that's all moot cause this thread was never about McD v. Shurmur. In fact that had nothing to do with it.

It's about what Brian's offense is going to look like THIS year. So far we're only making guesses. But one good guess is that they really did go back to 2010 film and take some things from that. Why? Cause Bradford was comfortable with it, instinctively and intuitively. Why is that good? Because we want Bradford to have a base to work from that's instinctive and intuitive and comfortable. It's a confidence builder.

Will Brian the S do more than they did in 2010? You would think so. 2010 was very limited in terms of personnel. Jackson was hobbled, Bradford was a rookie, they had no WRs outside of Danny "short pass" Dola and the inconsistent when available DX, and the tackles were young. Now the tackles are more experienced; they are going to bolster the blocking with schemes that worked before with the Titans, Falcons, and Jets; Bradford has a qb coach and is in his 3rd year, which counts for something even if he's not going to be as in-tune with the system initially as he will later; SJ ought to be healthy; and they have lots of promising young WRs to do things with PLUS have DannyDola back. Fisher, Shottenheimer, and Boudreau have all run successful versions of that kind of offense before. Shottenheimer is now on his 6th major qb as a coach (Brees, Rivers, Pennington, Clemens, Favre, and Sanchez) and knows stuff about that.
Yeah it's fine that we disagree, because it would be too creepy if we agreed about everything.

I know what your discussion was initially about, but it's since evolved (like the Coryell system). My contention is that McDaniels' offense WAS scaled back. There was nothing exotic or confusing about the Eagles game from what I saw. It started out with a rushing touchdown and then we lost that guy. It also had several underneath throws to Amendola and then we lost THAT guy. It also had zone busters that Gibson and Kendricks ran only to have the balls hit them in the hands and fall to the ground. Protection was pretty good despite them having to face a wide-9 for which they weren't prepared, but they moved the ball rather well. It was the same game plan against the Giants and Redskins, and those were running well too. What happened was injury after injury after injury that limited what they could do.

Again, I say they could go ahead and use one formation with 25 plays, but that's like mailing in a loss. You can't expect an offensive coordinator to ONLY draw up bubble screens and 5-yard digs. Now, admittedly, McDaniels did do some goofy shyte that defied logic (at the time), but there were reasons for it.

Two examples that keep coming up:

1. The 5-wide sets against Seattle. The argument was that he wasn't protecting Bradford, but not enough people realize that's EXACTLY what lining up 5 wide was supposed to do. Put 5 guys in space, find the hot read or second read and get rid of the ball.

2. Not using Jackson at the goal-line. The argument was Jackson could just pound it in, so why screw around with throwing the ball? What not enough people realized at the time was, there were NO tight-ends available and the offensive line wasn't pushing anyone around the whole game. Execution screwed up what would have otherwise worked, but in the end Jackson came in and punched it in anyway.

So, yeah, he could overthink at times, but it wasn't because he was a stupid coordinator who thought he was smarter than he actually was. He was leaning heavily on the successful practices translating to game day. What derailed THAT was a lack of execution in pressure situations from rookies and a mish-mash of new guys sprinkled in all over the team.

I mean, think about it. Do you honestly believe that the statement "He had no feel for his personnel" holds up to scrutiny? Who would know more about the personnel than the guy who was running them through drills week in and week out? I just feel like sometimes we give professional athletes too much of a pass for being young instead of holding them to a professional standard.

Yeah the playcalling later was not so hot.

Yes I do feel that the statement "he had no feel for personnel" holds up. Heck I thought THAT about both Linehan and Martz. IMO McD was impatient and was used to working with vets. And they started the season out of sync. Whether he scaled back or not he didn't do it well enough because they were stressed and not comfortable and it showed. And I ain't alone, neither. Snead just today (posted interview) answered a question about the OL by saying they had trouble getting on the same page last year. Devaney said they would look at film after games and say where did those pass rushers come from, and he said they did not look comfortable. Venturi said the first week of the season that the OL knew the offense on paper but had trouble at the execution, play and don't think level. This is not just exotic playcalls. It's the WR and qb executing sight adjustments, even on basic plays that would look simple to us from the outside (if you didn't know the adjustment). It's the OL executing protections they're not used to in a system they're not used to. I have seen that before to start a season (2006, 2008, 2009) but this lasted four games. Do I put that on the coordinator? Yes--he didn't do it good enough. It goes to the coordinator. Any teacher will tell you that if the whole class flunks a test, even ones who have done well in the past, it's the test. Or the teacher since the teacher writes the test.

Anyway for me this was never about gameplans, it was about execution. Sometimes a team just hasn't gelled and needs reps.

But as you also know I also always said they would catch on with that offense and I even thought they were starting to till the injuries robbed them of that.

Meanwhile I expect the Fisher/Shottenheimer combo to do better because both have been through this before, they have an off-season, and in Brian's case he had to re-introduce his offense to a couple of different qbs in a row (like switching from Pennington to Favre to Sanchez in 2 years). And actually reading about what the plays say about the install, he is doing things entirely the right way, sounds like.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
zn said:
X said:
zn said:
X said:
DR RAM said:
Don't be confused....Pat Shurmer=GOD.

Josh McDaniels=Douche.

That is all this thread was intended.

If you don't get it, stick around, because it will come around.
Well I wouldn't go that far. Pragmatic vs Dogmatic would be more accurate.

And just like the injuries don't explain the ENTIRE picture, nor does McDaniels' perceived inflexibility explain the ENTIRE picture. What we know from last year is that Spagnuolo had to go vanilla when he lost a bunch of players. We also know that McDaniels tried to base his plan around the opponent's weaknesses every week. We know this because both things are documented with direct quotes from both McDaniels and Spagnuolo.

Here's the thing though. Both were right to do so. McDaniels isn't a bad coach, and he's certainly not a douche. Spagnuolo isn't a bad coach and he's certainly not as bad as people make him out to be either. Shurmur is Shurmur. He's got a very base offense and it's very boring. That's already translated in Cleveland. It works with inexperienced and young players though, so yay for that. But also, glad it's over.

Here's what I believe to be true. If McDaniels stayed on as offensive coordinator, and had a couple of NORMAL years with this team, the Rams would have been juggernauts. His playcalling is really good and his gameplanning is even better. He just had the same handicap everyone else on the 2011 Rams had. Not enough practice. Now again, I don't like him as a person, but that doesn't cloud my understanding of what he's capable of as a coach. I'm also likely to give the players a little ownership of their inability to execute when the opportunity was there. So I don't see McDaniels as the big offender. I mean, what're we talking about here? He could have lined up in I-formation 100% of the time and run the same 25 plays week in and week out, but that's not how you TRY to win games. You just run the gameplan during the week that you intend to run on Sunday, and you hope it works. If it works in practice, then as an OC, you expect it to work during games. But. That's not always the case with a young team. And the opposition doesn't always run the same gameplan they ran the week prior. It's all a chess match, and when you go up against teams that have had the benefit of being in the same system for years, you never have the upper hand.

Not sure how much of that I agree with. We know about McD's thing about gameplans cause that's an old Patz thing that goes back years.

But it doesn't account for his problems early on. You're also supposed to base gameplans on what your team can do. So for example the Patz never act like they have Steven Jackson even if the defense they are facing would be vulnerable to a big power back like that. And, of course, a team that doesn't get an offense at the installation level isn't going to execute gameplans later. I too agree they would have caught on, but in the meanwhile, he was awfully uncomprehending when it came to where his own players stood.

I don't agree about Shurmur, either...in Cleveland and in St. Louis both he coped with limitations on offense by emphasizing ball control. When he had the players to do more he has done more.

Either way that's all moot cause this thread was never about McD v. Shurmur. In fact that had nothing to do with it.

It's about what Brian's offense is going to look like THIS year. So far we're only making guesses. But one good guess is that they really did go back to 2010 film and take some things from that. Why? Cause Bradford was comfortable with it, instinctively and intuitively. Why is that good? Because we want Bradford to have a base to work from that's instinctive and intuitive and comfortable. It's a confidence builder.

Will Brian the S do more than they did in 2010? You would think so. 2010 was very limited in terms of personnel. Jackson was hobbled, Bradford was a rookie, they had no WRs outside of Danny "short pass" Dola and the inconsistent when available DX, and the tackles were young. Now the tackles are more experienced; they are going to bolster the blocking with schemes that worked before with the Titans, Falcons, and Jets; Bradford has a qb coach and is in his 3rd year, which counts for something even if he's not going to be as in-tune with the system initially as he will later; SJ ought to be healthy; and they have lots of promising young WRs to do things with PLUS have DannyDola back. Fisher, Shottenheimer, and Boudreau have all run successful versions of that kind of offense before. Shottenheimer is now on his 6th major qb as a coach (Brees, Rivers, Pennington, Clemens, Favre, and Sanchez) and knows stuff about that.
Yeah it's fine that we disagree, because it would be too creepy if we agreed about everything.

I know what your discussion was initially about, but it's since evolved (like the Coryell system). My contention is that McDaniels' offense WAS scaled back. There was nothing exotic or confusing about the Eagles game from what I saw. It started out with a rushing touchdown and then we lost that guy. It also had several underneath throws to Amendola and then we lost THAT guy. It also had zone busters that Gibson and Kendricks ran only to have the balls hit them in the hands and fall to the ground. Protection was pretty good despite them having to face a wide-9 for which they weren't prepared, but they moved the ball rather well. It was the same game plan against the Giants and Redskins, and those were running well too. What happened was injury after injury after injury that limited what they could do.

Again, I say they could go ahead and use one formation with 25 plays, but that's like mailing in a loss. You can't expect an offensive coordinator to ONLY draw up bubble screens and 5-yard digs. Now, admittedly, McDaniels did do some goofy shyte that defied logic (at the time), but there were reasons for it.

Two examples that keep coming up:

1. The 5-wide sets against Seattle. The argument was that he wasn't protecting Bradford, but not enough people realize that's EXACTLY what lining up 5 wide was supposed to do. Put 5 guys in space, find the hot read or second read and get rid of the ball.

2. Not using Jackson at the goal-line. The argument was Jackson could just pound it in, so why screw around with throwing the ball? What not enough people realized at the time was, there were NO tight-ends available and the offensive line wasn't pushing anyone around the whole game. Execution screwed up what would have otherwise worked, but in the end Jackson came in and punched it in anyway.

So, yeah, he could overthink at times, but it wasn't because he was a stupid coordinator who thought he was smarter than he actually was. He was leaning heavily on the successful practices translating to game day. What derailed THAT was a lack of execution in pressure situations from rookies and a mish-mash of new guys sprinkled in all over the team.

I mean, think about it. Do you honestly believe that the statement "He had no feel for his personnel" holds up to scrutiny? Who would know more about the personnel than the guy who was running them through drills week in and week out? I just feel like sometimes we give professional athletes too much of a pass for being young instead of holding them to a professional standard.

Yeah the playcalling later was not so hot.

Yes I do feel that the statement "he had no feel for personnel" holds up. Heck I thought THAT about both Linehan and Martz. IMO McD was impatient and was used to working with vets. And they started the season out of sync. Whether he scaled back or not he didn't do it well enough because they were stressed and not comfortable and it showed. And I ain't alone, neither. Snead just today (posted interview) answered a question about the OL by saying they had trouble getting on the same page last year. Devaney said they would look at film after games and say where did those pass rushers come from, and he said they did not look comfortable. Venturi said the first week of the season that the OL knew the offense on paper but had trouble at the execution, play and don't think level. This is not just exotic playcalls. It's the WR and qb executing sight adjustments, even on basic plays that would look simple to us from the outside (if you didn't know the adjustment). It's the OL executing protections they're not used to in a system they're not used to. I have seen that before to start a season (2006, 2008, 2009) but this lasted four games. Do I put that on the coordinator? Yes--he didn't do it good enough. It goes to the coordinator. Any teacher will tell you that if the whole class flunks a test, even ones who have done well in the past, it's the test. Or the teacher since the teacher writes the test.

Anyway for me this was never about gameplans, it was about execution. Sometimes a team just hasn't gelled and needs reps.

But as you also know I also always said they would catch on with this offense and I even thought they were starting to till the injuries robbed them of that.
Well now I'm noticing an important distinction here. At what point does Loney get involved in the discussion about failure to adjust? We all know that McDaniels was charged with coaching the coaches, and that includes Loney. Loney, from there, was required to get his OL up to speed on the scheme and their individual (as well as cumulative) responsibilities. Maybe Loney screwed up?

OR.

Maybe injuries and a lack of an off-season kept EVERYONE from being all they could be. It's also important to remember that Clemens came off the street and was running the offense. That means, in no uncertain terms, that it was scaled back and simplified. I find it hard to believe that he did that ONLY for Clemens and not for Bradford and Feeley. And also, maybe the O-line just wasn't that great? Smith always struggled, Saffold never graded really well, Brown was benched and Bell later retired. Dahl was the only one who stayed healthy, and that's not necessarily a ringing endorsement or anything.

Anyhoo, I'm not one to lay this solely at McDaniels' feet. Especially since (as fans) we have NO idea what every week was like for this offense. We don't know how much of the playbook was held back, how well they practiced, how many plays were scrapped, and how many were part of every game. We just see aftermath. Wreckage and carnage that only holds hypotheses as to what caused it all. And I say this after having watched enough of that sickening season while making videos, and I saw it in triplicate. I saw (a whole helluva lot) ONE guy give up a TD. I saw ONE GUY fail to score. I saw ONE GUY miss a throw, and I saw ONE GUY give up a sack. In other words, I saw execution problems spread across the team like a virus. On both sides of the ball. Players should be held accountable for their own failures sometimes.
 

Anonymous

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #52
bluecoconuts said:
I'm just saying, my system of "Score more points" is the best one.

Boy you really don't get this system thing do you.

In a WCO system, you say "always readily recall that it is to our advantage to continually produce points in a timely fashion."

In the Coryell system, it's "touchdowns, you mothers! Boo-rah."
 

PhxRam

Guest
"Snead just today (posted interview) answered a question about the OL by saying they had trouble getting on the same page last year. Devaney said they would look at film after games and say where did those pass rushers come from, and he said they did not look comfortable. Venturi said the first week of the season that the OL knew the offense on paper but had trouble at the execution, play and don't think level. "

To me that sounds like its on Bradford.
 

Anonymous

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #54
PhxRam said:
"Snead just today (posted interview) answered a question about the OL by saying they had trouble getting on the same page last year. Devaney said they would look at film after games and say where did those pass rushers come from, and he said they did not look comfortable. Venturi said the first week of the season that the OL knew the offense on paper but had trouble at the execution, play and don't think level. "

To me that sounds like its on Bradford.

I don't really thinks so. How the protections are executed varies according to the defensive alignment and then who blitzes and who doesn;t. That;s all after the call is made. Rick Venturi was very good on this so I'll just give his version. The problem with picking up on variations comes down to execution. It's one thing to know the protection call on paper, it's another to know in real time how to react without having to think about it. That comes from reps, experience, and more reps. Bradford said that over the summer they would go one piece at a time with the install, and didn't have time to go back over parts, or practice it to the point where the mistakes would get exposed and they could correct them. They would just move on. In short, at just the execution level, they did not have their timing down as a group, they did not know how to make the reads instantly and react instantly, they had not repped things to the point where the variations were second nature. You can make the right call but the timing can be off to the point where it just doesn't work right.
 

PhxRam

Guest
zn said:
PhxRam said:
"Snead just today (posted interview) answered a question about the OL by saying they had trouble getting on the same page last year. Devaney said they would look at film after games and say where did those pass rushers come from, and he said they did not look comfortable. Venturi said the first week of the season that the OL knew the offense on paper but had trouble at the execution, play and don't think level. "

To me that sounds like its on Bradford.

I don't really thinks so. How the protections are executed varies according to the defensive alignment and then who blitzes and who doesn;t. That;s all after the call is made. Rick Venturi was very good on this so I'll just give his version. The problem with picking up on variations comes down to execution. It's one thing to know the protection call on paper, it's another to know in real time how to react without having to think about it. That comes from reps, experience, and more reps. Bradford said that over the summer they would go one piece at a time with the install, and didn't have time to go back over parts, or practice it to the point where the mistakes would get exposed and they could correct them. They would just move on. In short, at just the execution level, they did not have their timing down as a group, they did not know how to make the reads instantly and react instantly, they had not repped things to the point where the variations were second nature. You can make the right call but the timing can be off to the point where it just doesn't work right.

Hypothetically speaking.. If you were given no OTAs who would you expect to call the better line coverage?
 

Anonymous

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #56
PhxRam said:
zn said:
PhxRam said:
"Snead just today (posted interview) answered a question about the OL by saying they had trouble getting on the same page last year. Devaney said they would look at film after games and say where did those pass rushers come from, and he said they did not look comfortable. Venturi said the first week of the season that the OL knew the offense on paper but had trouble at the execution, play and don't think level. "

To me that sounds like its on Bradford.

I don't really thinks so. How the protections are executed varies according to the defensive alignment and then who blitzes and who doesn;t. That;s all after the call is made. Rick Venturi was very good on this so I'll just give his version. The problem with picking up on variations comes down to execution. It's one thing to know the protection call on paper, it's another to know in real time how to react without having to think about it. That comes from reps, experience, and more reps. Bradford said that over the summer they would go one piece at a time with the install, and didn't have time to go back over parts, or practice it to the point where the mistakes would get exposed and they could correct them. They would just move on. In short, at just the execution level, they did not have their timing down as a group, they did not know how to make the reads instantly and react instantly, they had not repped things to the point where the variations were second nature. You can make the right call but the timing can be off to the point where it just doesn't work right.

Hypothetically speaking.. If you were given no OTAs who would you expect to call the better line coverage?

But we also know that whether he called them right or not, they had trouble executing them either way. All the people I referenced in my post you're responding to? BrianS, Devaney, Venturi....they were all talking about the OL in itself, not the qb. I mean they knew Bradford was calling the protections. But if the OL is that out of sync, it kind of hardly matters if he called them wrong or right.
 

Anonymous

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #57
X said:
Well now I'm noticing an important distinction here. At what point does Loney get involved in the discussion about failure to adjust? We all know that McDaniels was charged with coaching the coaches, and that includes Loney. Loney, from there, was required to get his OL up to speed on the scheme and their individual (as well as cumulative) responsibilities. Maybe Loney screwed up?

OR.

Maybe injuries and a lack of an off-season kept EVERYONE from being all they could be. It's also important to remember that Clemens came off the street and was running the offense. That means, in no uncertain terms, that it was scaled back and simplified. I find it hard to believe that he did that ONLY for Clemens and not for Bradford and Feeley. And also, maybe the O-line just wasn't that great? Smith always struggled, Saffold never graded really well, Brown was benched and Bell later retired. Dahl was the only one who stayed healthy, and that's not necessarily a ringing endorsement or anything.

Anyhoo, I'm not one to lay this solely at McDaniels' feet. Especially since (as fans) we have NO idea what every week was like for this offense. We don't know how much of the playbook was held back, how well they practiced, how many plays were scrapped, and how many were part of every game. We just see aftermath. Wreckage and carnage that only holds hypotheses as to what caused it all. And I say this after having watched enough of that sickening season while making videos, and I saw it in triplicate. I saw (a whole helluva lot) ONE guy give up a TD. I saw ONE GUY fail to score. I saw ONE GUY miss a throw, and I saw ONE GUY give up a sack. In other words, I saw execution problems spread across the team like a virus. On both sides of the ball. Players should be held accountable for their own failures sometimes.

I would say that Loney did fine in 2010 with an offensive attack geared around what the players could and could not do. Loney, to me, is simple--the OL is better in the year when they don't change systems AND aren't injured. That would be 2010.

I think the moral language of "holding players accountable" can often short change an analysis. This isn't about blame, for me it's more like engineering--what part worked, what part didn't, why.

Here's some scattered remarks I made after games in Sept. 2011, gathered together into one post. In the original this is stuff from 3-4 posts. I just piled it together as if it were written as a single post.

zn
Sept 2011

Venturi said before the season. He saw the OL failing on blitzes in the pre-season games and said he first thought they just didn't know the protections. Then he watched film and realized they are just not "used to" executing it--getting the timing down, feeling each other in space, being a coherent unit. The OL knew the protection packages but weren't used to playing them in real time, with a cohesive sense of how to react in a fast game.

Specifically, knowing blocking schemes on paper and executing them in real time in space are not the same thing...and according to Venturi, the Rams problem is the latter.

Think of some of the Rams biggest gaffes.

Against the Eagles Bradford fumbles when he trips over Brown. What is the qb doing tripping over the center? What is the center doing not knowing where the qb is on a simple hand off?

Today, a redzone disaster play--Saffold is knocked off a block by the guard bumping into him. Result: sack. What is the guard doing bumping into the LOT.

The OL is not playing together coherently yet. Why not? Too much to learn to quickly and not enough reps to master it. In previous years they had entire offseasons--including OTA practices and mini-camps--to master this stuff.

The Ol has to know how to play together, in the real, in real time, knowing how each of them react and so on...and they don't have that yet. And the OL isn't in there alone. WRs have to get open or the blocks don't matter. RBs have to block or know when to run a pattern, TEs, the qb...all have to be on the same page. That's not book learning, that's reps and familiarity. If any of that screws up they are in bad situations (3rd and long) and it all gets compounded. I promise you, this is what I am seeing--it's not talent, it's not playcalling, it's a team not in sync in bad situations (behind, etc).

It's not size of the "playbook" btw. This is weekly thing. You avoid tendencies by overwhelming with volume. If you play that way you can't concentrate on execution. That's a coaching choice. It;s just a bad one at this stage with this team.