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

[Anonymous]

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.

Nice analyses.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Nice analyses.

Who? Where's the list of players who are making it elsewhere and couldn't with the Rams?

Grant is a back-up at ILB in SF. He couldn't make it as a outside backer in Spags's more mentally demanding 4/3.

Robinson was gimpy last year (and it showed in his play). That's why 2 teams let him go (Atl, St. Louis). I don;t know why the 3rd team let him go (SD). He got healthy in Dallas. Good for him.

Other than that who else?

 

[-X-]

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.

Nice analyses.

Who? Where's the list of players who are making it elsewhere and couldn't with the Rams?

Grant is a back-up at ILB in SF. He couldn't make it as a outside backer in Spags's more mentally demanding 4/3.

Robinson was gimpy last year (and it showed in his play). That's why 2 teams let him go (Atl, St. Louis). I don;t know why the 3rd team let him go (SD). He got healthy in Dallas. Good for him.

Other than that who else?

I think Squeaky saw the word "Hanifan" and that was enough. He likes him some Hanny.

There aren't any players outside of Robinson who are playing well (or starting), and like you said, it's because he's not on IR or on the trainer's table for the first time in a long time. That's just bad timing for us, and good fortune for him. Robinson also has the added benefit of, well, everything else that offense provides. Line, TE, two very good wide-outs, veteran QB, and that cool looking star on the helmet.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Nice analyses.

Who? Where's the list of players who are making it elsewhere and couldn't with the Rams?

Grant is a back-up at ILB in SF. He couldn't make it as a outside backer in Spags's more mentally demanding 4/3.

Robinson was gimpy last year (and it showed in his play). That's why 2 teams let him go (Atl, St. Louis). I don;t know why the 3rd team let him go (SD). He got healthy in Dallas. Good for him.

Other than that who else?

I think Squeaky saw the word "Hanifan" and that was enough. He likes him some Hanny.

There aren't any players outside of Robinson who are playing well (or starting), and like you said, it's because he's not on IR or on the trainer's table for the first time in a long time. That's just bad timing for us, and good fortune for him. Robinson also has the added benefit of, well, everything else that offense provides. Line, TE, two very good wide-outs, veteran QB, and that cool looking star on the helmet.

Probably right about that X. Me loves some Hanny! Kind of like football comfort food listening to his no BS account of this no account of a season. I still agree with 91 though. Our coaches are not coaching up our young players and that is what will frustrate this franchise over time. We may have witnessed SJ burn his career here and that's sad. He deserved much better. Excellent FAs stay way now and likely will for years to come. You can't have the turnover we see after training camp if the coaches are getting it done in my opinion. Will try to follow the fun but now have to run as wahines, kiwis and Oz awaits. :tooth:

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Nice analyses.

Who? Where's the list of players who are making it elsewhere and couldn't with the Rams?

Grant is a back-up at ILB in SF. He couldn't make it as a outside backer in Spags's more mentally demanding 4/3.

Robinson was gimpy last year (and it showed in his play). That's why 2 teams let him go (Atl, St. Louis). I don;t know why the 3rd team let him go (SD). He got healthy in Dallas. Good for him.

Other than that who else?

I think Squeaky saw the word "Hanifan" and that was enough. He likes him some Hanny.

There aren't any players outside of Robinson who are playing well (or starting), and like you said, it's because he's not on IR or on the trainer's table for the first time in a long time. That's just bad timing for us, and good fortune for him. Robinson also has the added benefit of, well, everything else that offense provides. Line, TE, two very good wide-outs, veteran QB, and that cool looking star on the helmet.

Probably right about that X. Me loves some Hanny! Kind of like football comfort food listening to his no BS account of this no account of a season. I still agree with 91 though. Our coaches are not coaching up our young players and that is what will frustrate this franchise over time. We may have witnessed SJ burn his career here and that's sad. He deserved much better. Excellent FAs stay way now and likely will for years to come. You can't have the turnover we see after training camp if the coaches are getting it done in my opinion. Will try to follow the fun but now have to run as wahines, kiwis and Oz awaits. :tooth:

Long? Laurenaitis? They havent been coached up? Chamberlain--who has been fine. There's a secondary full of spare parts, yet they're not a total embarassment. Stewart was coming on. Before he went down, Salas was catching on. Big Mike could play, he just couldn't stay on the field.

The rest on offense? Saffold? Bradford? All of whom played better before. I see the offense as divided into 2 parts. First act, early in the season, they were just over their heads in a new offense with a coach who has no feel for his players and ran the system without regard for who was executing it. That would have straightened itself out eventually. Second act, massive and extensive injuries of a kind no team recovers from.

 

[-X-]

Long? Laurenaitis? They havent been coached up? Chamberlain--who has been fine. There's a secondary full of spare parts, yet they're not a total embarassment. Stewart was coming on. Before he went down, Salas was catching on. Big Mike could play, he just couldn't stay on the field.

The rest on offense? Saffold? Bradford? All of whom played better before. I see the offense as divided into 2 parts. First act, early in the season, they were just over their heads in a new offense with a coach who has no feel for his players and ran the system without regard for who was executing it. That would have straightened itself out eventually. Second act, massive and extensive injuries of a kind no team recovers from.

. . . and this.

(credit to aeneas1 at realramsfans.com)

 

[bluecoconuts]

Looks like Dahl is the only one who remembered he's supposed to block people.

 

[-X-]

Looks like Dahl is the only one who remembered he's supposed to block people.

Mhm. It's to be expected (kinda) with a line that has exactly zero guys playing the position they started the season playing, and 3 starting tackles sidelined by injury. With a backup QB. Against a top defense. On the road. On a Sunday.

Here's the play in real time.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC3HuyiZSWY[/youtube]

 

[ljramsfan]

Looks like Dahl is the only one who remembered he's supposed to block people.

Mhm. It's to be expected (kinda) with a line that has exactly zero guys playing the position they started the season playing, and 3 starting tackles sidelined by injury. With a backup QB. Against a top defense. On the road. On a Sunday.

Here's the play in real time.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC3HuyiZSWY[/youtube]

I laughed so hard at that. It looks like Forrest Gump.

 

[Angry Ram]

Boy I would hate to be Goldberg in the film room today.

 

[brokeu91]

Boy I would hate to be Goldberg in the film room today.

He just looked terrible out there. I felt bad for him, because he does try, he just had a very bad game.

 

[Angry Ram]

He hasn't been good for a while. Only an emergency OT. Better @ G. A backup G.

Can't cut him either, Rams player rep.

 

[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.

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.

I don't think I'm misconstruing anything. What is the "simplistic playbook" you speak of? Isn't making such assumptions based on literally no facts more along the lines of misconstruction?

Yes, Orton said he felt more comfortable with McDaniels' offense in his second year, but how did he play in it his first year? He was basically statistically the same in both his first and second years there, both quite respectable for a guy that nobody would have coughed up the first overall pick or anywhere near $70 mil for.

So once again we have arguments attempting to claim both sides of the fence. One says the Bengals were much better than they showed last year because just the year before they were the 2nd seed in the AFC led by Palmer. The other says the following season Palmer apparently went into the season "through there"???? That's why they stunk suddenly? Was it the playoff run that finished Palmer off there or what?

Who's garbling arguments again?

 

[-X-]

So once again we have arguments attempting to claim both sides of the fence. One says the Bengals were much better than they showed last year because just the year before they were the 2nd seed in the AFC led by Palmer. The other says the following season Palmer apparently went into the season "through there"???? That's why they stunk suddenly? Was it the playoff run that finished Palmer off there or what?

Who's garbling arguments again?

Maybe you can just get to your point and then have a discussion about that. It seems that you're just in this for the "lively debate" at this point. I asked you several questions within this thread and you've ignored them all in order to point out contradictions as you see them in other posts.

What is it you'd like to say? Make a statement.

 

[HornIt]

He hasn't been good for a while. Only an emergency OT. Better @ G. A backup G.

Can't cut him either, Rams player rep.

He actually played pretty well filling in at RT for a while after Smith went down. He's not a starting LT though. He's a decent utility swing man type. He was mostly solid as the Rams starting RG last year too. He got beat at times, and he gets beat at times this year. They all do.

 

[HornIt]

So once again we have arguments attempting to claim both sides of the fence. One says the Bengals were much better than they showed last year because just the year before they were the 2nd seed in the AFC led by Palmer. The other says the following season Palmer apparently went into the season "through there"???? That's why they stunk suddenly? Was it the playoff run that finished Palmer off there or what?

Who's garbling arguments again?

Maybe you can just get to your point and then have a discussion about that. It seems that you're just in this for the "lively debate" at this point. I asked you several questions within this thread and you've ignored them all in order to point out contradictions as you see them in other posts.

What is it you'd like to say? Make a statement.

I'm pretty sure the reason the statement I've made a number of times already has been overlooked is because it's not the popular statement, so others look for lively debate and start accusing me of things like misconstruing and garbling rather than constructing counterpoints that don't contradict each other.

I didn't respond to your last post because I've responded to all your questions already, but you seem to want to keep asking again. Why? Maybe the answers aren't satisfactory? Here, let me show you....

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.

There's obviously more than one thing wrong and certainly all I've been doing here is agreeing that it's pretty much all screwed up here.

The question being debated here is why?

And the point I've made multiple times now, specific to the screwed up offense anyway, is that the only proven NFL entity that is associated with the offense and least likely candidate responsible for the screwed up status is McDaniels. McDaniels was the overwhelmingly popular choice among the fans, even though I was weary of making such a change, precisely because of his proven track record of getting production out of various levels of talent. Suddenly, the guy is apparently incompetent.

I don't buy it. No more than I bought the idea that Scott Linehan, Al Saunders and Pat Shurmur were incompetent offensive minds. This offense has had 4 OC's in 5 years now and been in the bottom 5 in offense when you combine scoring and yards each of those 5 years. When will the day come when people stop pointing fingers at the OC? When they start making better decisions on players, that's when.

 

[-X-]

I didn't respond to your last post because I've responded to all your questions already, but you seem to want to keep asking again. Why? Maybe the answers aren't satisfactory?

No, you didn't answer me. So I'll just show you what you skipped over - again.

[textarea]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.[/textarea]
Instead, you skipped all that to tell me about Dalton's stats.
THEN, you skipped this. There are a few questions in here that went unanswered.

[textarea]And we might have to agree to disagree about McDaniels. While I didn't say he was the SOLE reason for the state of affairs here, I absolutely believe he's a major contributor. But if the popular consensus is that he's an innovator and can do more with less, then what's the problem now? With arguably better receivers this year, this offense is worse. Same QB's, same OL, better receivers (or lateral talent), and worse results. If injuries don't matter, and that's also a popular (mis)conception, then he should be able to game plan around that. If what you're saying is true. And if the OL is subpar, why would you put your QB in a position where he's left unprotected (last week)? Lining up Jackson 15 yards off the ball and giving Bradford NO blockers is smart in what way? And it reinforces your opinion of the O-line or McDaniels in what way?[/textarea]

And then today Softli was talking about how the Ravens were able to attack the 49ers on stretch plays, but McDaniels ran right at the DT's. Several times. One stretch play netted 9 yards, and that was the only one McDaniels called. Okay, so you don't buy that McDaniels is the problem. Or even *a* problem. That's fine. I don't see it the same way you do, and I'm certainly not alone. I spider every news source I can find for this board, and what I'm reading and/or hearing is the opposite of what you're saying. Doesn't mean you're wrong. Just that you're in the minority.

Now, do I think he could do a better job with better players and more prep time? Absolutely. I said as much. But you're saying it's just players. And at the same time, you say he did it in Denver with NO players. And he did it in New England before he had players. Now, according to you, he has no players again. So what's the problem? I'd hold off on pointing out contradictions until you get your own house in order. See below.

When will the day come when people stop pointing fingers at the OC? When they start making better decisions on players, that's when.

Meanwhile, you go out of your way to point out Dalton and give no mention to their OC, Jay Gruden. Dalton's just great, apparently.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I wouldn't be thrilled about running stretch plays with our tackles/TE's either to be honest. It might work once or twice, but there's a reason why the 49ers haven't allowed a rushing TD since last Christmas.

There's not many plays I'd be thrilled about running with our offense in the state it is now. McDaniels isn't a dummy, he's taking notes on what works and what doesn't work with the team I'm sure and will go over far more tape in the offseason than most, if not all, of us will do in a lifetime and adjust as needed. That's usually what he does.

It's a long process, and it's not easy, but I'm not ready to abandon ship either. There are a lot of problems, it's not just coaches, it's not just players, it's not just injuries, it's not just playcalling, it's not just schedule, it's a mixture of everything.

Everyone wants to point the finger at someone and say "That's the badguy." but there are a lot of problems that we're dealing with. Some of them will be replaced with different plays, and different coaches, and different players, and some of them will just be luck. That's how it works in all sports.

 

[HornIt]

I didn't respond to your last post because I've responded to all your questions already, but you seem to want to keep asking again. Why? Maybe the answers aren't satisfactory?

No, you didn't answer me. So I'll just show you what you skipped over - again.

[textarea]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.[/textarea]
Instead, you skipped all that to tell me about Dalton's stats.
THEN, you skipped this. There are a few questions in here that went unanswered.

[textarea]And we might have to agree to disagree about McDaniels. While I didn't say he was the SOLE reason for the state of affairs here, I absolutely believe he's a major contributor. But if the popular consensus is that he's an innovator and can do more with less, then what's the problem now? With arguably better receivers this year, this offense is worse. Same QB's, same OL, better receivers (or lateral talent), and worse results. If injuries don't matter, and that's also a popular (mis)conception, then he should be able to game plan around that. If what you're saying is true. And if the OL is subpar, why would you put your QB in a position where he's left unprotected (last week)? Lining up Jackson 15 yards off the ball and giving Bradford NO blockers is smart in what way? And it reinforces your opinion of the O-line or McDaniels in what way?[/textarea]

And then today Softli was talking about how the Ravens were able to attack the 49ers on stretch plays, but McDaniels ran right at the DT's. Several times. One stretch play netted 9 yards, and that was the only one McDaniels called. Okay, so you don't buy that McDaniels is the problem. Or even *a* problem. That's fine. I don't see it the same way you do, and I'm certainly not alone. I spider every news source I can find for this board, and what I'm reading and/or hearing is the opposite of what you're saying. Doesn't mean you're wrong. Just that you're in the minority.

Now, do I think he could do a better job with better players and more prep time? Absolutely. I said as much. But you're saying it's just players. And at the same time, you say he did it in Denver with NO players. And he did it in New England before he had players. Now, according to you, he has no players again. So what's the problem? I'd hold off on pointing out contradictions until you get your own house in order. See below.

When will the day come when people stop pointing fingers at the OC? When they start making better decisions on players, that's when.

Meanwhile, you go out of your way to point out Dalton and give no mention to their OC, Jay Gruden. Dalton's just great, apparently.

You pulled out the "no OTA's, complicated offense" excuse posed as a question. I answered that question by debunking the excuse with rookie 2nd round draft pick Dalton and Jay Gruden's new and complicated offense, not just for Dalton but for the entire offense including rookie WR, etc. You don't like that answer though, so you characterize the exchange inaccurately as "skipped all that to tell you about Dalton's stats". The point of bringing Dalton into the conversation, and actually Newton was too, wasn't to point out their greatness, it was to demonstrate that the excuse, which was the premise for your question, lacks validity.

I also answered the second point you said I didn't when I explained that the marginal success they had early last year in Shurmur's offense with the short, safe and simple approach was already exceeding it's shelf life as they and the QB struggled mightily over the last 4 or 5 games of the season. I seem to recall you even responded to the comment about sustainability. I explained that regardless of who they brought in, the offense this year needed to stretch and that was the plan with McDaniels and almost universal chant among the fans then. This group, however, doesn't seem capable of stretching even a little and even though McDaniel's has not exactly gone Max Q with them. Bradford is averaging almost exactly the same pass attempts per game this year as last and the exact same paltry 6 yards per attempt. They have tried to ask him to do more in his second year and he hasn't been capable of it. I suppose the alternative would be to treat him as a rookie and be satisfied with a bottom 5 offense again, but McDaniels was brought in to do more.

Finally, apparently Softly thinks you can do the same things with a between the tackles runner in Steven Jackson that you can with Ray Rice. Suddenly adapting to YOUR personnel isn't the issue, it's that you didn't do what somebody with different personnel did? One of SJ's worst attributes is stretching plays along the line of scrimmage. He is not an effective runner doing that. So now I'm confused again. Wasn't the complaint that McDaniels wasn't adapting to HIS personnel, but now the complaint is that he was adapting to his personnel???

 

[bluecoconuts]

You pulled out the "no OTA's, complicated offense" excuse posed as a question. I answered that question by debunking the excuse with rookie 2nd round draft pick Dalton and Jay Gruden's new and complicated offense, not just for Dalton but for the entire offense including rookie WR, etc. You don't like that answer though, so you characterize the exchange inaccurately as "skipped all that to tell you about Dalton's stats".

That comparison doesn't really work because the Bengals gave Dalton a far more simple offense than Bradford has, and he also has the benefit of a mostly healthy offense, and better receivers and tight ends. I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree with trying to compare the two teams, because there are far different circumstances around why they are overachieving while we are underachieving.