Why the St. Louis Rams shouldn't fire GM Billy Devaney

[-X-]

Ah, but there's the problem with your argument. Bradford DID play as good as Dalton currently is. In Bradford's first year. Gruden is doing exactly what Shurmur did with Bradford, and he's having a very similar year as a result. 60% completion percentage, very similar TD/INT ratio, and roughly the same QB rating. You don't think it helps Dalton to have A.J. Green and Jermaine Gresham at his disposal? While Bradford had Amendola and Fells? Gruden took half the field away from Dalton - just like Shurmur. Gruden rolls Dalton out and moves the pocket - just like Shurmur.

What does McDaniels do to help Bradford? Gives him (with no off-season) sight adjustments, line call responsibilities, makes him drop back 7 instead of 3, and forces all of that on everyone (O-line included) without the benefit of thousands of reps that come with a normal off-season. That's a dramatic increase in responsibilities and a relative absence in preparation. I'd venture to guess that if the whole team had OTAs and minicamp, then it wouldn't look as bad as it does now. It would still be a learning process, but there would be a whole lot more familiarity and practice, and he would have a better understanding of what his players could and could not do. Shoot, even Lloyd identified the problem, and he played for the guy before.

Dalton is actually having a better rookie year in almost every way and statistical category than Bradford did, and against a much, much more difficult schedule. But, as a 2nd round pick rookie, he's also having by far a better year in a brand new offense than the 2nd year 1st overall pick without the benefit of an off season as well.

McDaniels shouldn't have to treat Bradford like a 2nd round pick rookie should he?

Actually, he's not having a much better rookie year. It's almost identical. And taking into account the whole of the situation (both their rookie seasons) should be a priority if you're going to compare the two. Meaning, Dalton has more to work with, and they both were (or in Dalton's case, *are*) using half the field. Also, since you're of the opinion that Devaney provided the Rams with a subpar line, then obviously Cincinnati's far superior line must become part of the equation, yeah?

And yes, he is having a better year now (Dalton). Without the off-season. Where he was drafted isn't necessarily significant, by the way, other than the money invested. There were no 2nd round QBs to be had in 2010 that would match the measurables Bradford had/has.

All that aside though.

Why do you suppose Dalton is having a better year than Bradford now that the lack of OTAs is a common theme? Are Cincinnati's and St Louis' offenses the same? Do they have the same personnel? Are both offensive coordinators employing the same schemes and methodologies? Are the lines the same? Injuries match up? Receivers the same caliber? All that's the same? If so, then you're right. Dalton is the better QB. But I don't think you're right. Respectfully, of course.

 

[-X-]

Ah, but there's the problem with your argument. Bradford DID play as good as Dalton currently is. In Bradford's first year. Gruden is doing exactly what Shurmur did with Bradford, and he's having a very similar year as a result. 60% completion percentage, very similar TD/INT ratio, and roughly the same QB rating. You don't think it helps Dalton to have A.J. Green and Jermaine Gresham at his disposal? While Bradford had Amendola and Fells? Gruden took half the field away from Dalton - just like Shurmur. Gruden rolls Dalton out and moves the pocket - just like Shurmur.

What does McDaniels do to help Bradford? Gives him (with no off-season) sight adjustments, line call responsibilities, makes him drop back 7 instead of 3, and forces all of that on everyone (O-line included) without the benefit of thousands of reps that come with a normal off-season. That's a dramatic increase in responsibilities and a relative absence in preparation. I'd venture to guess that if the whole team had OTAs and minicamp, then it wouldn't look as bad as it does now. It would still be a learning process, but there would be a whole lot more familiarity and practice, and he would have a better understanding of what his players could and could not do. Shoot, even Lloyd identified the problem, and he played for the guy before.

Dalton is actually having a better rookie year in almost every way and statistical category than Bradford did, and against a much, much more difficult schedule. But, as a 2nd round pick rookie, he's also having by far a better year in a brand new offense than the 2nd year 1st overall pick without the benefit of an off season as well.

McDaniels shouldn't have to treat Bradford like a 2nd round pick rookie should he?

opcorn:

 

[Anonymous]

Ah, but there's the problem with your argument. Bradford DID play as good as Dalton currently is. In Bradford's first year. Gruden is doing exactly what Shurmur did with Bradford, and he's having a very similar year as a result. 60% completion percentage, very similar TD/INT ratio, and roughly the same QB rating. You don't think it helps Dalton to have A.J. Green and Jermaine Gresham at his disposal? While Bradford had Amendola and Fells? Gruden took half the field away from Dalton - just like Shurmur. Gruden rolls Dalton out and moves the pocket - just like Shurmur.

What does McDaniels do to help Bradford? Gives him (with no off-season) sight adjustments, line call responsibilities, makes him drop back 7 instead of 3, and forces all of that on everyone (O-line included) without the benefit of thousands of reps that come with a normal off-season. That's a dramatic increase in responsibilities and a relative absence in preparation. I'd venture to guess that if the whole team had OTAs and minicamp, then it wouldn't look as bad as it does now. It would still be a learning process, but there would be a whole lot more familiarity and practice, and he would have a better understanding of what his players could and could not do. Shoot, even Lloyd identified the problem, and he played for the guy before.

Dalton is actually having a better rookie year in almost every way and statistical category than Bradford did, and against a much, much more difficult schedule. But, as a 2nd round pick rookie, he's also having by far a better year in a brand new offense than the 2nd year 1st overall pick without the benefit of an off season as well.

McDaniels shouldn't have to treat Bradford like a 2nd round pick rookie should he?

opcorn:

Your aim is too high. :rofl:

 

[HornIt]

Ah, but there's the problem with your argument. Bradford DID play as good as Dalton currently is. In Bradford's first year. Gruden is doing exactly what Shurmur did with Bradford, and he's having a very similar year as a result. 60% completion percentage, very similar TD/INT ratio, and roughly the same QB rating. You don't think it helps Dalton to have A.J. Green and Jermaine Gresham at his disposal? While Bradford had Amendola and Fells? Gruden took half the field away from Dalton - just like Shurmur. Gruden rolls Dalton out and moves the pocket - just like Shurmur.

What does McDaniels do to help Bradford? Gives him (with no off-season) sight adjustments, line call responsibilities, makes him drop back 7 instead of 3, and forces all of that on everyone (O-line included) without the benefit of thousands of reps that come with a normal off-season. That's a dramatic increase in responsibilities and a relative absence in preparation. I'd venture to guess that if the whole team had OTAs and minicamp, then it wouldn't look as bad as it does now. It would still be a learning process, but there would be a whole lot more familiarity and practice, and he would have a better understanding of what his players could and could not do. Shoot, even Lloyd identified the problem, and he played for the guy before.

Dalton is actually having a better rookie year in almost every way and statistical category than Bradford did, and against a much, much more difficult schedule. But, as a 2nd round pick rookie, he's also having by far a better year in a brand new offense than the 2nd year 1st overall pick without the benefit of an off season as well.

McDaniels shouldn't have to treat Bradford like a 2nd round pick rookie should he?

So what kind of playbook would you run then?

I don't think there's anything wrong with McDaniels playbook. It's proven it works if you have people who can execute it. But I also never bought into the McDaniels was the answer thing on offense either. I was one of the few Rams fans out there that appreciated what Shurmur did last year, but even with Shurmur they would have had to stretch it and ask more of the QB and others at some point to be an actual good offense.

In other words, it's not the playbook. That's what I'm saying. It wasn't Linehan's, then Olson's, then Saunder's and now Shurmur's and McDaniels' playbooks. None of those guys had bad playbooks.

 

[-X-]

Ah, but there's the problem with your argument. Bradford DID play as good as Dalton currently is. In Bradford's first year. Gruden is doing exactly what Shurmur did with Bradford, and he's having a very similar year as a result. 60% completion percentage, very similar TD/INT ratio, and roughly the same QB rating. You don't think it helps Dalton to have A.J. Green and Jermaine Gresham at his disposal? While Bradford had Amendola and Fells? Gruden took half the field away from Dalton - just like Shurmur. Gruden rolls Dalton out and moves the pocket - just like Shurmur.

What does McDaniels do to help Bradford? Gives him (with no off-season) sight adjustments, line call responsibilities, makes him drop back 7 instead of 3, and forces all of that on everyone (O-line included) without the benefit of thousands of reps that come with a normal off-season. That's a dramatic increase in responsibilities and a relative absence in preparation. I'd venture to guess that if the whole team had OTAs and minicamp, then it wouldn't look as bad as it does now. It would still be a learning process, but there would be a whole lot more familiarity and practice, and he would have a better understanding of what his players could and could not do. Shoot, even Lloyd identified the problem, and he played for the guy before.

Dalton is actually having a better rookie year in almost every way and statistical category than Bradford did, and against a much, much more difficult schedule. But, as a 2nd round pick rookie, he's also having by far a better year in a brand new offense than the 2nd year 1st overall pick without the benefit of an off season as well.

McDaniels shouldn't have to treat Bradford like a 2nd round pick rookie should he?

opcorn:

Your aim is too high. :rofl:

Warning shots. :omg:

Your popcorn guy is amazingly composed though. Ice water in his veins.

 

[Anonymous]

Ah, but there's the problem with your argument. Bradford DID play as good as Dalton currently is. In Bradford's first year. Gruden is doing exactly what Shurmur did with Bradford, and he's having a very similar year as a result. 60% completion percentage, very similar TD/INT ratio, and roughly the same QB rating. You don't think it helps Dalton to have A.J. Green and Jermaine Gresham at his disposal? While Bradford had Amendola and Fells? Gruden took half the field away from Dalton - just like Shurmur. Gruden rolls Dalton out and moves the pocket - just like Shurmur.

What does McDaniels do to help Bradford? Gives him (with no off-season) sight adjustments, line call responsibilities, makes him drop back 7 instead of 3, and forces all of that on everyone (O-line included) without the benefit of thousands of reps that come with a normal off-season. That's a dramatic increase in responsibilities and a relative absence in preparation. I'd venture to guess that if the whole team had OTAs and minicamp, then it wouldn't look as bad as it does now. It would still be a learning process, but there would be a whole lot more familiarity and practice, and he would have a better understanding of what his players could and could not do. Shoot, even Lloyd identified the problem, and he played for the guy before.

Dalton is actually having a better rookie year in almost every way and statistical category than Bradford did, and against a much, much more difficult schedule. But, as a 2nd round pick rookie, he's also having by far a better year in a brand new offense than the 2nd year 1st overall pick without the benefit of an off season as well.

McDaniels shouldn't have to treat Bradford like a 2nd round pick rookie should he?

opcorn:

Your aim is too high. :rofl:

Warning shots. :omg:

Your popcorn guy is amazingly composed though. Ice water in his veins.

Thanks, but he also doesn't have ears. :tooth:

 

[bluecoconuts]

Ah, but there's the problem with your argument. Bradford DID play as good as Dalton currently is. In Bradford's first year. Gruden is doing exactly what Shurmur did with Bradford, and he's having a very similar year as a result. 60% completion percentage, very similar TD/INT ratio, and roughly the same QB rating. You don't think it helps Dalton to have A.J. Green and Jermaine Gresham at his disposal? While Bradford had Amendola and Fells? Gruden took half the field away from Dalton - just like Shurmur. Gruden rolls Dalton out and moves the pocket - just like Shurmur.

What does McDaniels do to help Bradford? Gives him (with no off-season) sight adjustments, line call responsibilities, makes him drop back 7 instead of 3, and forces all of that on everyone (O-line included) without the benefit of thousands of reps that come with a normal off-season. That's a dramatic increase in responsibilities and a relative absence in preparation. I'd venture to guess that if the whole team had OTAs and minicamp, then it wouldn't look as bad as it does now. It would still be a learning process, but there would be a whole lot more familiarity and practice, and he would have a better understanding of what his players could and could not do. Shoot, even Lloyd identified the problem, and he played for the guy before.

Dalton is actually having a better rookie year in almost every way and statistical category than Bradford did, and against a much, much more difficult schedule. But, as a 2nd round pick rookie, he's also having by far a better year in a brand new offense than the 2nd year 1st overall pick without the benefit of an off season as well.

McDaniels shouldn't have to treat Bradford like a 2nd round pick rookie should he?

So what kind of playbook would you run then?

I don't think there's anything wrong with McDaniels playbook. It's proven it works if you have people who can execute it. But I also never bought into the McDaniels was the answer thing on offense either. I was one of the few Rams fans out there that appreciated what Shurmur did last year, but even with Shurmur they would have had to stretch it and ask more of the QB and others at some point to be an actual good offense.

In other words, it's not the playbook. That's what I'm saying. It wasn't Linehan's, then Olson's, then Saunder's and now Shurmur's and McDaniels' playbooks. None of those guys had bad playbooks.

Shurmur was hired away a week after the Rams last game, so they had to get a new OC.

But if not the playbook, then what would you change?

 

[Anonymous]

The play calling sucks. Game prep sucks too. Look at the Seattle game.

 

[-X-]

The play calling sucks. Game prep sucks too. Look at the Seattle game.

At this point, it's safe to say that a great deal of things "suck." It also takes a great deal of effort, execution, focus, and good luck to beat anyone. But it can be done. Look at the New Orleans game.

 

[Anonymous]

The play calling sucks. Game prep sucks too. Look at the Seattle game.

At this point, it's safe to say that a great deal of things "suck." It also takes a great deal of effort, execution, focus, and good luck to beat anyone. But it can be done. Look at the New Orleans game.

Oh I agree....I look at the Saints game....it really doesn't compute. Short week for the Saints if I recall....perhaps the Saints just were flat? Because the way the Rams have played since I can't think of anything else.

 

[-X-]

The play calling sucks. Game prep sucks too. Look at the Seattle game.

At this point, it's safe to say that a great deal of things "suck." It also takes a great deal of effort, execution, focus, and good luck to beat anyone. But it can be done. Look at the New Orleans game.

Oh I agree....I look at the Saints game....it really doesn't compute. Short week for the Saints if I recall....perhaps the Saints just were flat? Because the way the Rams have played since I can't think of anything else.

I dunno. I can't remember if it was a short week, but they were coming off of a complete shellacking of another team the week prior. Overconfident maybe. Flat maybe. Whooped by the Rams' defense and Steven Jackson, absolutely.

They had 4 quarters to pull out of their "flatness" and realize what was happening. Championship teams don't stay flat as far as I know. Something has to be happening TO them in order to lose. And like I said - perfect combination of things that seldom go right all at once for this team - did. Too bad we can't sustain that.

 

[HornIt]

Ah, but there's the problem with your argument. Bradford DID play as good as Dalton currently is. In Bradford's first year. Gruden is doing exactly what Shurmur did with Bradford, and he's having a very similar year as a result. 60% completion percentage, very similar TD/INT ratio, and roughly the same QB rating. You don't think it helps Dalton to have A.J. Green and Jermaine Gresham at his disposal? While Bradford had Amendola and Fells? Gruden took half the field away from Dalton - just like Shurmur. Gruden rolls Dalton out and moves the pocket - just like Shurmur.

What does McDaniels do to help Bradford? Gives him (with no off-season) sight adjustments, line call responsibilities, makes him drop back 7 instead of 3, and forces all of that on everyone (O-line included) without the benefit of thousands of reps that come with a normal off-season. That's a dramatic increase in responsibilities and a relative absence in preparation. I'd venture to guess that if the whole team had OTAs and minicamp, then it wouldn't look as bad as it does now. It would still be a learning process, but there would be a whole lot more familiarity and practice, and he would have a better understanding of what his players could and could not do. Shoot, even Lloyd identified the problem, and he played for the guy before.

Dalton is actually having a better rookie year in almost every way and statistical category than Bradford did, and against a much, much more difficult schedule. But, as a 2nd round pick rookie, he's also having by far a better year in a brand new offense than the 2nd year 1st overall pick without the benefit of an off season as well.

McDaniels shouldn't have to treat Bradford like a 2nd round pick rookie should he?

Actually, he's not having a much better rookie year. It's almost identical. And taking into account the whole of the situation (both their rookie seasons) should be a priority if you're going to compare the two. Meaning, Dalton has more to work with, and they both were (or in Dalton's case, *are*) using half the field. Also, since you're of the opinion that Devaney provided the Rams with a subpar line, then obviously Cincinnati's far superior line must become part of the equation, yeah?

And yes, he is having a better year now (Dalton). Without the off-season. Where he was drafted isn't necessarily significant, by the way, other than the money invested. There were no 2nd round QBs to be had in 2010 that would match the measurables Bradford had/has.

All that aside though.

Why do you suppose Dalton is having a better year than Bradford now that the lack of OTAs is a common theme? Are Cincinnati's and St Louis' offenses the same? Do the have the same personnel? Are both offensive coordinators employing the same schemes and methodologies? Are the lines the same? Injuries match up? Receivers the same caliber? All that's the same? If so, then you're right. Dalton is the better QB. But I don't think you're right. Respectfully, of course.

So you're saying McDaniels should have to treat his 2nd year franchise QB, 1st overall pick like a 2nd year rookie?

As for Gruden cutting off half the field for Dalton, not what I'm seeing at all. He's going through his progressions, netting to actual backside reads and doing more than the kind of primary high, low checkdown (mostly checkdown) thing that Shurmur did with Bradford last year.

As for comparing rookie years, Dalton is on a 16 game pace to have more total yard, 23 vs. 18 TD's, and a full yard per attempt better, which is significant, plus a passer rating of 81 vs. 76. He's also already won as many games as Bradford did in 12 games vs. 16. He'll end up probably with 9 wins or so in a very tough division as opposed to 7 against the worst division possibly in NFL history.

Are last year's 4 win Bengals with Carson Palmer suddenly supposed to be a great gig for rookie QB's or something because they now have a rookie WR? I always find this interesting, because nobody would have said such a thing and gave Dalton some kind of advantage before the season started. But because Dalton is doing more than anybody thought, and Bradford is doing worse, it must be due to the fortune of going to the mighty Bengals.

I'm not sure Dalton is a better QB, but I'll say this, he looks to be a much better draft pick.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Ah, but there's the problem with your argument. Bradford DID play as good as Dalton currently is. In Bradford's first year. Gruden is doing exactly what Shurmur did with Bradford, and he's having a very similar year as a result. 60% completion percentage, very similar TD/INT ratio, and roughly the same QB rating. You don't think it helps Dalton to have A.J. Green and Jermaine Gresham at his disposal? While Bradford had Amendola and Fells? Gruden took half the field away from Dalton - just like Shurmur. Gruden rolls Dalton out and moves the pocket - just like Shurmur.

What does McDaniels do to help Bradford? Gives him (with no off-season) sight adjustments, line call responsibilities, makes him drop back 7 instead of 3, and forces all of that on everyone (O-line included) without the benefit of thousands of reps that come with a normal off-season. That's a dramatic increase in responsibilities and a relative absence in preparation. I'd venture to guess that if the whole team had OTAs and minicamp, then it wouldn't look as bad as it does now. It would still be a learning process, but there would be a whole lot more familiarity and practice, and he would have a better understanding of what his players could and could not do. Shoot, even Lloyd identified the problem, and he played for the guy before.

Dalton is actually having a better rookie year in almost every way and statistical category than Bradford did, and against a much, much more difficult schedule. But, as a 2nd round pick rookie, he's also having by far a better year in a brand new offense than the 2nd year 1st overall pick without the benefit of an off season as well.

McDaniels shouldn't have to treat Bradford like a 2nd round pick rookie should he?

Actually, he's not having a much better rookie year. It's almost identical. And taking into account the whole of the situation (both their rookie seasons) should be a priority if you're going to compare the two. Meaning, Dalton has more to work with, and they both were (or in Dalton's case, *are*) using half the field. Also, since you're of the opinion that Devaney provided the Rams with a subpar line, then obviously Cincinnati's far superior line must become part of the equation, yeah?

And yes, he is having a better year now (Dalton). Without the off-season. Where he was drafted isn't necessarily significant, by the way, other than the money invested. There were no 2nd round QBs to be had in 2010 that would match the measurables Bradford had/has.

All that aside though.

Why do you suppose Dalton is having a better year than Bradford now that the lack of OTAs is a common theme? Are Cincinnati's and St Louis' offenses the same? Do the have the same personnel? Are both offensive coordinators employing the same schemes and methodologies? Are the lines the same? Injuries match up? Receivers the same caliber? All that's the same? If so, then you're right. Dalton is the better QB. But I don't think you're right. Respectfully, of course.

So you're saying McDaniels should have to treat his 2nd year franchise QB, 1st overall pick like a 2nd year rookie?

As for Gruden cutting off half the field for Dalton, not what I'm seeing at all. He's going through his progressions, netting to actual backside reads and doing more than the kind of primary high, low checkdown (mostly checkdown) thing that Shurmur did with Bradford last year.

As for comparing rookie years, Dalton is on a 16 game pace to have more total yard, 23 vs. 18 TD's, and a full yard per attempt better, which is significant, plus a passer rating of 81 vs. 76. He's also already won as many games as Bradford did in 12 games vs. 16. He'll end up probably with 9 wins or so in a very tough division as opposed to 7 against the worst division possibly in NFL history.

Are last year's 4 win Bengals with Carson Palmer suddenly supposed to be a great gig for rookie QB's or something because they now have a rookie WR? I always find this interesting, because nobody would have said such a thing and gave Dalton some kind of advantage before the season started. But because Dalton is doing more than anybody thought, and Bradford is doing worse, it must be due to the fortune of going to the mighty Bengals.

I'm not sure Dalton is a better QB, but I'll say this, he looks to be a much better draft pick.

AJ Green gives them far more stability at WR than Ochocinco and T.O. did. Ochocinco can't even find the field in New England, he's not as good as people think he is. AJ Green has far more talent, and yes he makes that team a lot better. Especially without the locker room drama. Don't underestimate how much locker room drama can drain a team.

I'm not an expert on the Bengals either, but I know that Palmer checked out long ago. Hence why he was willing to retire than play for the Bengals. Dalton actually wants to play and wants to win, that boosts the team a lot. I also believe the Bengals did a few upgrades over both the offense and the defense.


But besides all of that, this was a team that was almost the #2 team in the AFC two years ago, who swept their division, so they're not as bad as their record reflected last year. At any rate they're certainly better than the mess that Bradford inherited last year. Having a talented #1 receiver, and a reliable TE is big for a rookie QB, Bradford has never had either of those. Lloyd just came here, and Bradford hasn't had much time because of his injury, and Kendricks needs a full offseason so he can relax and develop smoother.

 

[Anonymous]

So you're saying McDaniels should have to treat his 2nd year franchise QB, 1st overall pick like a 2nd year rookie? .

Good coaches know what their players can do, and work with it. They don't go "oh, I see, FRANCHISE quarterback, 2nd year, many millions of dollars, well then let's act like this is his 3rd year in the offense on a young team that thinks sight adjustments is 3 words."

If McD was hung up on all this hype about Bradford, that's another one of his mistakes.

It's simple. What can the guy do. What can't he do. How fast can you bring him along. What works, what could work, what doesn't.

My guess is that McD didn't even look at the players. He just looked at a laptop full of plays and then complained about the players not getting it fast enough.

That's exaggerated for effect but it is actually the best explanation for what I saw in the first 4 games. Worse than Martz, this guy has no sense of personnel. He's all about the system. It didn't work.

Maybe he can join others in complaining that the qb undermined him. Tears could flow. As opposed to him figuring out how to set the qb up for success. As every other coach in the league with a young qb figured out. In fact Harbaugh figured it out with an old and broken one.

...

 

[HornIt]

So you're saying McDaniels should have to treat his 2nd year franchise QB, 1st overall pick like a 2nd year rookie? .

Good coaches know what their players can do, and work with it. They don't go "oh, I see, FRANCHISE quarterback, 2nd year, many millions of dollars, well then let's act like this is his 3rd year in the offense on a young team that thinks sight adjustments is 3 words."

If McD was hung up on all this hype about Bradford, that's another one of his mistakes.

It's simple. What can the guy do. What can't he do. How fast can you bring him along. What works, what could work, what doesn't.

My guess is that McD didn't even look at the players. He just looked at a laptop full of plays and then complained about the players not getting it fast enough.

That's exaggerated for effect but it is actually the best explanation for what I saw in the first 4 games. Worse than Martz, this guy has no sense of personnel. He's all about the system. It didn't work.

Maybe he can join others in complaining that the qb undermined him. Tears could flow. As opposed to him figuring out how to set the qb up for success. As every other coach in the league with a young qb figured out. In fact Harbaugh figured it out with an old and broken one.

...

McDaniels may have mistakenly thought he had a guy more capable then Kyle Orton. I guess he could have overestimated, or so it appears you're saying.

 

[JdashSTL]

Are last year's 4 win Bengals with Carson Palmer suddenly supposed to be a great gig for rookie QB's or something because they now have a rookie WR? I always find this interesting, because nobody would have said such a thing and gave Dalton some kind of advantage before the season started. But because Dalton is doing more than anybody thought, and Bradford is doing worse, it must be due to the fortune of going to the mighty Bengals.

2 years ago the Bengals went to the playoffs with Palmer. Dalton didnt come into a terrible situation. Am I shocked at how good they have been? Yes, but they kinda remind me of us and the Bucs last year. Aside from the Titans, they havent beaten a +.500 team yet. Does this mean Dalton and the team will regress next year? Who knows.

Its really hard for me to compare the Rams issues with any other team. Maybe the Browns come close. 6 wins from 07-09. Terrible drafting, coaching changes, regime change. How many players (draft picks or FAs) do we still have on the roster from before 2008? I belive its 2 (SJ and Bartell). Thats it. That should give ya an idea on just how much our new regime has been given to work with and how they have literally had to start over with this team.

 

[HornIt]

AJ Green gives them far more stability at WR than Ochocinco and T.O. did. Ochocinco can't even find the field in New England, he's not as good as people think he is. AJ Green has far more talent, and yes he makes that team a lot better. Especially without the locker room drama. Don't underestimate how much locker room drama can drain a team.

I'm not an expert on the Bengals either, but I know that Palmer checked out long ago. Hence why he was willing to retire than play for the Bengals. Dalton actually wants to play and wants to win, that boosts the team a lot. I also believe the Bengals did a few upgrades over both the offense and the defense.


But besides all of that, this was a team that was almost the #2 team in the AFC two years ago, who swept their division, so they're not as bad as their record reflected last year. At any rate they're certainly better than the mess that Bradford inherited last year. Having a talented #1 receiver, and a reliable TE is big for a rookie QB, Bradford has never had either of those. Lloyd just came here, and Bradford hasn't had much time because of his injury, and Kendricks needs a full offseason so he can relax and develop smoother.

So in this thread, we've had arguments that rookies and second year players on offense make things more difficult and decrease chances for success and we've had arguments that rookies bring more stability and are an advantage over having veteran multiple time pro bowlers.

That talent that got them the 2nd seed in the AFS a couple years ago is almost all gone now, though one of the key changes this year was to move Maualuga to MLB, who is another guy supposedly inferior to the guy the Rams took there instead.

Well, since we seem to have all sides of the excuse covered now, I'll just reiterate that it's a personnel issue, and the guys responsible for that issue need to be replaced.

 

[Ram Quixote]

AJ Green gives them far more stability at WR than Ochocinco and T.O. did. Ochocinco can't even find the field in New England, he's not as good as people think he is. AJ Green has far more talent, and yes he makes that team a lot better. Especially without the locker room drama. Don't underestimate how much locker room drama can drain a team.

I'm not an expert on the Bengals either, but I know that Palmer checked out long ago. Hence why he was willing to retire than play for the Bengals. Dalton actually wants to play and wants to win, that boosts the team a lot. I also believe the Bengals did a few upgrades over both the offense and the defense.


But besides all of that, this was a team that was almost the #2 team in the AFC two years ago, who swept their division, so they're not as bad as their record reflected last year. At any rate they're certainly better than the mess that Bradford inherited last year. Having a talented #1 receiver, and a reliable TE is big for a rookie QB, Bradford has never had either of those. Lloyd just came here, and Bradford hasn't had much time because of his injury, and Kendricks needs a full offseason so he can relax and develop smoother.

So in this thread, we've had arguments that rookies and second year players on offense make things more difficult and decrease chances for success and we've had arguments that rookies bring more stability and are an advantage over having veteran multiple time pro bowlers.

That talent that got them the 2nd seed in the AFS a couple years ago is almost all gone now, though one of the key changes this year was to move Maualuga to MLB, who is another guy supposedly inferior to the guy the Rams took there instead.

Well, since we seem to have all sides of the excuse covered now, I'll just reiterate that it's a personnel issue, and the guys responsible for that issue need to be replaced.

Don't misconstrue the arguments. Rookies and 2nd-year players coming from a simplistic playbook being given the complicated offense of McDaniels is a real issue. Orton himself said it wasn't until his second season in McDaniel's offense that he "got" it, and he's a veteran QB.

And no, rookies don't provide more stability than Pro Bowlers ... unless you're talking about the situation in Cincy. Blue made it quite clear that Palmer was through there, and the Bengals are ultimately better off with Dalton, but also because AJ Green has excelled, leaving the drama in the locker room, provided by those "Pro Bowler" WRs from last year, elsewhere.

You sound petty when you garble arguments on purpose.

 

[-X-]

Ah, but there's the problem with your argument. Bradford DID play as good as Dalton currently is. In Bradford's first year. Gruden is doing exactly what Shurmur did with Bradford, and he's having a very similar year as a result. 60% completion percentage, very similar TD/INT ratio, and roughly the same QB rating. You don't think it helps Dalton to have A.J. Green and Jermaine Gresham at his disposal? While Bradford had Amendola and Fells? Gruden took half the field away from Dalton - just like Shurmur. Gruden rolls Dalton out and moves the pocket - just like Shurmur.

What does McDaniels do to help Bradford? Gives him (with no off-season) sight adjustments, line call responsibilities, makes him drop back 7 instead of 3, and forces all of that on everyone (O-line included) without the benefit of thousands of reps that come with a normal off-season. That's a dramatic increase in responsibilities and a relative absence in preparation. I'd venture to guess that if the whole team had OTAs and minicamp, then it wouldn't look as bad as it does now. It would still be a learning process, but there would be a whole lot more familiarity and practice, and he would have a better understanding of what his players could and could not do. Shoot, even Lloyd identified the problem, and he played for the guy before.

Dalton is actually having a better rookie year in almost every way and statistical category than Bradford did, and against a much, much more difficult schedule. But, as a 2nd round pick rookie, he's also having by far a better year in a brand new offense than the 2nd year 1st overall pick without the benefit of an off season as well.

McDaniels shouldn't have to treat Bradford like a 2nd round pick rookie should he?

Actually, he's not having a much better rookie year. It's almost identical. And taking into account the whole of the situation (both their rookie seasons) should be a priority if you're going to compare the two. Meaning, Dalton has more to work with, and they both were (or in Dalton's case, *are*) using half the field. Also, since you're of the opinion that Devaney provided the Rams with a subpar line, then obviously Cincinnati's far superior line must become part of the equation, yeah?

And yes, he is having a better year now (Dalton). Without the off-season. Where he was drafted isn't necessarily significant, by the way, other than the money invested. There were no 2nd round QBs to be had in 2010 that would match the measurables Bradford had/has.

All that aside though.

Why do you suppose Dalton is having a better year than Bradford now that the lack of OTAs is a common theme? Are Cincinnati's and St Louis' offenses the same? Do the have the same personnel? Are both offensive coordinators employing the same schemes and methodologies? Are the lines the same? Injuries match up? Receivers the same caliber? All that's the same? If so, then you're right. Dalton is the better QB. But I don't think you're right. Respectfully, of course.

So you're saying McDaniels should have to treat his 2nd year franchise QB, 1st overall pick like a 2nd year rookie?

As for Gruden cutting off half the field for Dalton, not what I'm seeing at all. He's going through his progressions, netting to actual backside reads and doing more than the kind of primary high, low checkdown (mostly checkdown) thing that Shurmur did with Bradford last year.

As for comparing rookie years, Dalton is on a 16 game pace to have more total yard, 23 vs. 18 TD's, and a full yard per attempt better, which is significant, plus a passer rating of 81 vs. 76. He's also already won as many games as Bradford did in 12 games vs. 16. He'll end up probably with 9 wins or so in a very tough division as opposed to 7 against the worst division possibly in NFL history.

Are last year's 4 win Bengals with Carson Palmer suddenly supposed to be a great gig for rookie QB's or something because they now have a rookie WR? I always find this interesting, because nobody would have said such a thing and gave Dalton some kind of advantage before the season started. But because Dalton is doing more than anybody thought, and Bradford is doing worse, it must be due to the fortune of going to the mighty Bengals.

I'm not sure Dalton is a better QB, but I'll say this, he looks to be a much better draft pick.

I think we're just talking past each other now. The crux of my argument is that both coordinators (Shurmur/Gruden) are doing the same things for their rookie QB's, and they're netting similar results. Of course Gruden has more to work with than Shurmur did with the Rams, and you admitted as much in your initial post about the O-line and the overall ineffectiveness of our wide receivers last year. It was an unwitting method on your part of reinforcing THIS argument that we're having now, but you did it nonetheless. Which is fine, because it's true.

And I'm not *saying* anything about how McDaniels should have treated Bradford, other than Bradford wasn't afforded the opportunity to see what he could do with a more complicated offense than the one he had the year prior. And not just more complicated, but completely different. There's a learning/unlearning thing associated with that, and it's painfully evident that he (McDaniels) thought everyone should pick it up. Bradford, rookies, O-line, everybody. Per Lloyd, that's difficult on rookies because they're still learning how to do things; and that, in turn, leads to a drop off in execution. So, yes, I do think McDaniels should have treated him as a rookie. To start. If he can gradually absorb more of the playbook and (here's the important part) the REST of the offense was on the same page as Bradford, then you go ahead and get more exotic. If they can't, then you know what your limitations are. And limitations isn't a euphemism for crappy players. It's important for chemistry that everyone know what they're doing at the same time.

Ultimately though, I think we can sum this up by saying that I believe coaching has led to a diminished return in performance, and you're of the opinion that personnel has handicapped the coaches. Both are true to a degree, so I don't really see the necessity of over-analyzing the statistics between Dalton/Bradford or individual achievements of players/coaches before their arrival here. It's pretty much all screwed up right now, and there are a lot of reasons for that. Which proves my overall point that there's no ONE thing wrong here.

 

[brokeu91]

One problem I have, and I'm sure this is why there is such a debate, is who knows what part of this is on our coaches not properly developing players.

When the Rams drafted Pace, I had complete confidence that Hanifan would be able to develop him. I have no such confidence in Loney. In the same light, we could draft Blackmon but will Cromwell be able help him reach his potential?

Some of the guys who we drafted weren't making it here, but are now playing for other teams. Is that Devaney's fault?

That's why if I'm Kroenke I would hire a football guy and put him in charge of the whole operation and let that person decide if Devaney or Spags or any of the position coaches need to go or should stay.