What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Are the 2013 Rams for Real? (1 Viewer)

Riversco

Footballguy
Rams have now annihilated the Colts and Bears in back to back weeks. We know Bradford is out. We know the Rams running game has been unstoppable.

It is quite uncommon to crush two teams in back to back weeks. That feat is typically reserved for elite teams. Is this is a fluke? Or are the Rams turning the corner?

 

valhallan

Footballguy
Basically dominated Seattle a few Mondays ago too. I think the defense is for real - they have playmakers and Fisher's trademark aggressiveness. The injury to Bradford seems to have shifted the offense to smashmouth running, which obviously works well with a stout defense.

 

Riversco

Footballguy
Defense is coming together plus a dominant running attack will win a lot of games. They are 5-6 but look out! Might not make the playoffs but with games against the 49ers, Seahawks and Saints they could be a spoiler.

 

mad sweeney

Footballguy
Defense is coming together plus a dominant running attack will win a lot of games. They are 5-6 but look out! Might not make the playoffs but with games against the 49ers, Seahawks and Saints they could be a spoiler.
Wouldn't be surprised to see them win 2 of those 3.

 

Bob Magaw

Footballguy
combined 80-29 last two games...

defensive scores two games in a row, and a ST score against colts...

the 30 point win against IND was first in a decade for STL...

playing good defense...

robert quinn could lead the league in sacks...

run game was ridiculous today... 261 yards on 26 RB carries (counting austin's rush, and not clemens three for -3)... even taking away austin's 65 yard run, stacy had 7+ yards and cunningham 8+ yards average carry... that won't happen every week, but stacy was a stud against SEA, and they aren't exactly cupcakes... rams OL developing an identity as a physical run blocking unit...

austin had a serious breakout against IND and helped draw first blood with another big play today, so his improved play and success (TDs not wiped out by drops and team penalties on ST, also schottenheimer has been more creative with routes and usage - well designed run today) somewhat overlaps and coincides with the team's improved play and success past two weeks.

rams get the saints at home, and they (like seahawks) are more ordinary on the road...

but SF and SEA on road, those will be tough...

not sure if stacy had a concussion (?), and also heard starting CB trumaine johnson left the game... after finnegan put on IR this week , so that hurts if they are short of bodies... finnegan has been a bust this year, which was another factor earlier in the year when he was starting but hurting the defense, a case of addition by subtraction, but they could use trumaine johnson... SS mcdonald imo is hinky in coverage and he is their best safety, jenkins not playing as well as last year, so the secondary still an achilles heel... if the STL DL continues to pressure the QB, that helps mask that, but i would expect better pass blocking teams to exploit that...

they could easily be 7-4 (flip the eminently winnable SEA game and just one other among several close losses - DAL and SF blowouts took place before stacy and austin broke out)...

compared to the top NFC West teams, though (SEA and SF), look how many pro bowl caliber talents they have on both sides of the ball? on defense, chris long and laurinaitis are very good players, not sure they are serial pro bowl caliber... brockers and ogletree have outstanding potential, maybe early to project pro bowls... finnegan used to be pro bowl caliber, far, far from that now (see above)... quinn all pro caliber and looks like the best player on either side of the ball for the rams (they need to re-sign him in what will be a very lucrative but well deserved contract)... watt and atkins were the consensus top DE and DT last year... quinn in the conversation for top DL (and defensive player overall, with earl thomas... sean lee was doing great but got hurt AGAIN) this year, and emerging as one of the most dangerous pass rushers in the game (aldon smith and von miller still recovering from long suspension-related absences)...

on offense, jake long was pro bowl caliber in MIA, not sure if he is at that level now, but he has played well for the most part this year and has been worth signing if he can stay healthy... tavon austin may be pro bowl caliber returner, he is coming into his own on offense...

but realistically, quinn might be only pro bowler this year? they still need to add some talent on both sides of the ball...

agree they will be hard pressed to make playoffs, but could play a spoiler role down the stretch...

the 2014 draft will be interesting...

WAS has only three wins and a tough schedule down the stretch... STL could get a top 5 pick from the RGIII trade, and depending on how many QBs declare, and with freak DE clowney in the draft, possibly have a shot at a blue chip player like LT matthews or WR sammy watkins... and still maybe fill a big need with the second first rounder (their own - currently mid-first), with a prospect like consensus best safety in class haha clinton-dix... if they cut some dead weight (like finnegan - has to at least restructure if not outright cut), maybe add a free agent or two, the rams could have a bright future.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

lyon812

Footballguy
Basically dominated Seattle a few Mondays ago too. I think the defense is for real - they have playmakers and Fisher's trademark aggressiveness. The injury to Bradford seems to have shifted the offense to smashmouth running, which obviously works well with a stout defense.
This is pretty dead on. Of course, the Rams still have some struggles on defense. Jenkins is talented but inconsistent, Finnegan is washed up, and the safety play has been uninspiring once McDonald was hurt. Laurinaitis has seemed a step slow this year, for whatever reason.

I feel the Rams turnaround has been spearheaded by two things:

1. Playing a tighter defense. For the first several games, our CBs gave opposing WRs a LOT of cushion. Like, playing 7-8 yards off on every play. They've moved toward playing a lot more man/press coverage, which means they aren't giving up 8 yards per play anymore. On the line, only Langford is a weak piece. Robert Quinn (per PFF) has broken out and now leads all defensive players with 67 combined sacks, hits & hurries. Long isn't stout against the run, but gets tons of pressure. Early in the season, this was being wasted, because while their DEs got to the QB quickly, the depth the CBs were playing at simply meant QBs ate them up with short passes. Playing tighter has made that pressure work more effectively.

2. Abandoning the hopes of a high-falootin' passing attack and going back to the ground-and-pound game that Fisher is most comfortable with. Aside from Stacy being a genuine starting RB, which Daryl Richardson never was, something unheralded by many is that Saffold has been playing RG--and looked dominant while doing so. As in, forget ever moving him to tackle, because this is where he was born to play.

The sad thing is that the Rams could easily be challenging for the division. They've been non-competitive in three games this year (Dallas/SF/Carolina), but nearly came back against the Falcons, lost to Seattle while on the 1-yard line, and lost to the Titans in the last couple of minutes of the game. Of course, "almost" means nothing, but consider they'd be 8-3 while the Seahawks would be 9-2, and you realize how razor-thin the difference between terrible and good really is.

The WRs haven't taken as many steps forward as they need to, and the Rams desperately need a safety upgrade (I've been banging the drum for Clinton-Dix). The biggest problem is that they play in a very tough division, and all three teams arguably have more talented rosters top to bottom than the Rams do. But they're a very young team that seems to be resilient, and that's a great positive to carry forward.

 

FUBAR

Footballguy
They have more talent on defense than they get credit for. Two good/great ends and two of the best young linebackers in the league. They are in position to have a good draft.

The cardinals look good too, making the division the best in football.

 

Bob Magaw

Footballguy
who would you take, lyon, if the rams get the fifth overall pick...

lets say bridgewater, mariota and clowney are top three picks, and off the board already (i know mariota may not declare, but it will be tough not to if he projects to be a top two-three overall pick - pac 10 QBs like USCs leinart and barkely got burned by leaving a year too late)...

you could have one of OT matthews or WR watkins, some other prospect or even trade down might be option (trade up not seeming very likely from 1.5)...

after initially not thinking we need another WR, given how special watkins looks (one of four AP first team All-Americans as true freshman in NCAA history, with herschell walker, marshall faulk and adrian peterson), i find that prospect one of the more interesting ones... watkins, austin, quick, givens, bailey and cook would be nasty to defend... especially since they have found a RB in stacy... the bottom line is what combination of picks puts STL in the best position to win now and in the future, and perhaps a strong case could be made for watkins... watkins was one of the most college ready preps ever based on his freshman season... he looks like one of the best prospects at the position since AJ green and julio jones (if not quite in their class, arguably better than any WR from class of 2013, blackmon and floyd from 2012 - though josh gordon does look like an ascendant player)... if he is a legit top 10 WR prospect, ATL blew up their draft for a player like that in julio (albeit better to some degree)... the beauty of such a move for the rams, is that with another two first round pick draft next year, the team could be improved in 2014, not in a position to get a talent like watkins for a while, yet wouldn't have to blow up their draft and future drafts to acquire him... he would just be a pure gift at 1.5-1-6? but matthews would be great, too, LT of the future, could play RT for a few years, hall of fame bloodlines like long...

clinton dix would be a great pick with their second first (their own), a mid-first now, if he is still there...

some rams are clamoring for a LB like van noy, mosley or mack with one of the first round picks... my only question about that, is since no way ogletree isn't a three down LB, do you sit the rookie or laurinaitis? that only makes sense if they were grooming a long term successor, but even than, laurinaitis is close to 27 i think, and just signed an extension in 2012... seems like we have enough bigger holes that might be a luxury pick?

first a high pick for a two down player (or to make a move that renders laurinaitis a two down player).

 
Last edited by a moderator:

lyon812

Footballguy
I'd be sorely tempted by Watkins, but he is the only offensive skill position player I would take. Aside from his obvious talent, I'm very concerned about the Rams' development of Givens, Quick, and Bailey. Particularly the first two; there's really no reason that on this roster, in their second year, they should be producing more in both volume and consistency. Austin seems to be a superior deep threat to Givens, and runs the short routes better; rolling out Watkins + Austin + Quick as your top 3 and using Givens as a situational threat would be great.

However, what matters most is what the front office thinks, and if they're still on board with this receiver group, I expect them to go DT, and I'm fine with that. Our offensive line play has actually improved quite a bit this year, but our run defense is still very suspect. Another tackle to slot in next to Brockers would be good. Remember how the Panthers have been the last few years? Great DEs in Johnson and Hardy, but that only gets you so far. Lotulelei and Short come along, and voila--that line is dominant. However, I know very little about the defensive linemen in this draft aside from Louis Nix being the top tackle I see listed.

I've been wanting Dix with the second pick, though if we keep winning he may not last that long. There is a whole crapload of teams in the 5-6/6-5 range right now, and our draft position could be anywhere from 12-23. Unfortunately, I don't think Dix lasts past the mid-teens at the latest. If he's gone, they should still address the secondary with the best CB or S on the board.

 

lyon812

Footballguy
Should mention, by the way, that Ogletree is legit. His closing speed is sometimes amazing, and that's something we've sorely lacked in recent seasons on the outside. While he struggled at the start of the season with his reads and not trusting his instincts (i.e. thinking too much and being hesitant), he's gotten better throughout the season and I'm thrilled to have him there.

 

SaintsInDome2006

Footballguy
Wonder if the Bears are as hung over from their blowout as the Colts.

****************************

Playoffs: make that play from the goal line vs SEA and you'd be right in it. Horrible play calling at the end.

****************************

Tough question for Rams fans - would this be happening with Bradford at the helm?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

lyon812

Footballguy
Wonder if the Bears are as hung over from their blowout as the Colts.

****************************

Playoffs: make that play from the goal line vs SEA and you'd be right in it. Horrible play calling at the end.

****************************

Tough question for Rams fans - would this be happening with Bradford at the helm?
I'm still on the fence about Bradford, but the Rams' renaissance isn't because of Clemens. It's because of a run game, improved OL play, and better defensive scheming.

 

CalBear

Footballguy
Wonder if the Bears are as hung over from their blowout as the Colts.

****************************

Playoffs: make that play from the goal line vs SEA and you'd be right in it. Horrible play calling at the end.

****************************

Tough question for Rams fans - would this be happening with Bradford at the helm?
I'm still on the fence about Bradford, but the Rams' renaissance isn't because of Clemens. It's because of a run game, improved OL play, and better defensive scheming.
Clemens isn't the reason for the success, but he may have given them the opportunity to stop hoping that their golden boy would one day be a good QB, and play defense and run the ball instead.

 

Bob Magaw

Footballguy
the defense is playing better, partly for reasons explained by lyon... the DBs were playing off, you could see it in the ATL game, among others... that is a scheme adjustment (remember they have the new DC walton from DET)... ogletree is playing better, that is a case of a rookie playing faster when he doesn't have to think so much, and can just unleash his athleticism and talent instinctively...

obviously those defensive factors have nothing to do with the QB...

against CHI, STL had 261 yards in 26 carries (not counting Clemens 3 for -3)... not making fun of the premise, but pretty sure any QB could have handed the ball off as effectively... and would have benefited from the great running (poor run defense by CHI, a combination?) as much... i don't think opposing defenses are daring STL to run (like peyton manning opponents might) because clemens is a feared passer... the success of the run game speaks to dominant run blocking... also, since clemens took over, stacy has emerged... the rams didn't have that going for them in the bad losses to DAL and SF...

clemens made some pass plays in the bears game, austin was I think 2-39 and cook had 80 yards and a TD, in his best game since week one... against the colts, one of clemens TDs to austin was a short flip not in itself difficult to execute, what was noteworthy was that OC had austin run a crossing route... along with the deep route TD, both were examples of more creative route design and usage by schottenheimer...

after austin's breakout, a poster who just a few weeks before had stated he might never amount to anything, seized on the opportunity to blame the previous QB for not breaking out sooner... if nothing else, it was a resourceful method for misdirecting the thread that somebody that had just pronounced a death sentence on austin's career two weeks earlier, now wanted to jump on the bandwagon...

when it was pointed out that the first seven weeks were plagued by a comedy of errors (drops and penalties nullifying easy TDs, aforementioned coaching misuse of austin), it wasn't well received, on the basis of it being too many "excuses"... yet, austin was misused before and is being better used now... austin didn't drop his two TDs receptions in IND, or i'm pretty sure they wouldn't have been TDs (same with a penalty bringing them back)...

after austin scored a 65 yard TD... almost immediately comes the obligatory austin's breakout is linked to clemens remark... unfortunately, they were in such a hurry to criticize bradford purely out of reflex (a chicken will run around for a while even after decapitated and brainless), they neglected a small fact... it was a RUN... :) it would be hard to imagine a clearer example of being exposed as an incoherent critique, or a transparent agenda having to do with something other than the facts.

i do give clemens credit, he has played better with more reps... i still think they need to draft a developmental QB that might be an improvement over clemens as a long term backup, if injury strikes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bob Magaw

Footballguy
Wonder if the Bears are as hung over from their blowout as the Colts.

****************************

Playoffs: make that play from the goal line vs SEA and you'd be right in it. Horrible play calling at the end.

****************************

Tough question for Rams fans - would this be happening with Bradford at the helm?
I'm still on the fence about Bradford, but the Rams' renaissance isn't because of Clemens. It's because of a run game, improved OL play, and better defensive scheming.
Clemens isn't the reason for the success, but he may have given them the opportunity to stop hoping that their golden boy would one day be a good QB, and play defense and run the ball instead.
your point is that they decided to not play defense with bradford, and only made the conscious decision to play defense after the ACL injury... so the coaches and players had previously decided to let opposing offenses march up and down the field and score at will when bradford was the QB, but than to actually stop offenses and prevent them from scoring once clemens arrived on the scene... could you elaborate on that? what could bradford possibly have to do with the defense?it is bradford's fault that stacy didn't play earlier because he either wasn't ready, or some other related coaches decision? and now that clemens is the beneficiary, this somehow reflects badly on bradford?

you were down on austin because you thought desean jackson ran exact same routes as austin, but more effectively... when you realized this was a preposterous claim, you switched up to the he can't possibly do as well, because there is an immutable law that 5'10" is tall enough, but 5'8" is too short... when that sounded silly, you switched up (maybe on the rationale that if you throw enough stuff, something will stick) to he doesn't have natural hands...

how do you like his hands after the IND game?

you are going to have to do another patented calbear prop up the misguided austin doom and gloom projection, grab bag excuse, switchey changey shuffle pretty soon.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Isotopes

Footballguy
Can anyone give an objective report on Benny Cunningham's game on Sunday? Thanks
Curious about this also. I don't have Stacy but see how valuable a Rams running back can be.

If Stacy completely rebounds - does Cunningham have any value? Does his performance earn him 8-10 carries, or is the Ram backfield a one back system?

 

bicycle_seat_sniffer

Smells like chicken
great test coming up for STL running games AT SF and AT Ariz

I was thinking about maybe benching stacy/Cunninhgam for those games but the bench options arent much better

 

FUBAR

Footballguy
FWIW, Matt Miller has the Rams taking LB CJ Mosley with the Redskins pick, OT Brandon Scherff with their 1st, and DT Michael Bennett with their 2nd. The tackles make sense and Mosley is a beast, but I don't see why they'd take Mosley over Sammy Watkins or Taylor Lewann. I'd take Lewann with the earlier 1st and either Clinton-Dix or a corner like Jason Verrett with their own.

 

lod01

Footballguy
Can anyone give an objective report on Benny Cunningham's game on Sunday? Thanks
Sure. As the discoverer of Benny Cunningham, he is built like a tank with tree trunk legs. Plenty of speed and moves. He can run up the middle and take it outside. Fumbles are a little concerning. He did drop one last week but was able to recover it.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/st-louis-rams/0ap2000000287745/RB-Cunningham-9-yd-run-TD powers over defender showing nose for end zone.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/st-louis-rams/0ap2000000287733/RB-Cunningham-27-yd-run sees hole but takes it outside for the bigger hole.

And yes he is good at catching the ball.

 

Late225

Footballguy
If I were them, I would attempt to trade up for a franchise quarterback. They have more ammo than most teams.

 

lyon812

Footballguy
If I were them, I would attempt to trade up for a franchise quarterback. They have more ammo than most teams.
If you were them, you'd still be in love with Bradford, dating back to only a handful of weeks ago when Demoff was openly saying things like, ""We have decided that Sam Bradford is our guy. If they came to us and wanted to do a contract extension right now, we'd do it in a minute."

There's no way they're moving up for a quarterback. In fact, considering that there are likely to be 4-5 teams wanting a QB, I wouldn't be surprised if they trade down from 5 in the hopes of turning it into more draft capital.

 

Bob Magaw

Footballguy
If I were them, I would attempt to trade up for a franchise quarterback. They have more ammo than most teams.
If you were them, you'd still be in love with Bradford, dating back to only a handful of weeks ago when Demoff was openly saying things like, ""We have decided that Sam Bradford is our guy. If they came to us and wanted to do a contract extension right now, we'd do it in a minute."

There's no way they're moving up for a quarterback. In fact, considering that there are likely to be 4-5 teams wanting a QB, I wouldn't be surprised if they trade down from 5 in the hopes of turning it into more draft capital.
to me, the dream scenario would be to trade back to about 1.8 (team like CLE?), add a second round pick, and STILL get watkins...

not sure i would want to drop down as far as they did when they got brockers (though they said they would have drafted brockers even if no DAL trade), though... i'd really like to get a blue chip, best-in-class at an important position prospect like watkins or matthews...

rams may not be picking in a place where they would be in position to do that again, any time soon (fans hope, anyways)...

it would be bizarre if WAS loses out (possible, they have been one of the worst teams based on their play lately, trending down), and STL gets the #1 overall pick, and snead/fisher parlay it AGAIN (bridgewater looking like best pre-draft QB prospect since the last draft the rams did this, which set things in motion and got them WAS pick in the first place), into ANOTHER blockbuster multi-first round trade! :)

certainly teams know the rams will deal with snead/fisher at the helm...

* it could happen, or if not, top 2-3, anyways... teams like TB and JAX that seemed like shoo-ins for the top two picks as recently as a few weeks ago have been playing better... and ATL and HOU seemingly should be better than their record and have no business in contention for the top overall pick (HOU plays JAX this weekend?), even accounting for injuries... dimitroff and smith safe in ATL, but kubiak could be fighting for his coaching life (maybe same for some players?), so the texans have incentives to not lay down... MIN tie not as good as a win, but better than a loss in tie-breaker scenarios... speaking of that, i think SOS factors in to the tie-breaker equation (and that might favor the redskins/rams?)...

ATL probably ONLY team at bottom where HC a lock to return (unless shanahan is?)... JAX HC probably gets some slack for only being in first year and inheriting such a talent depleted team... but add TB and MIN HCs to list of those possibly fighting for their jobs, and highly motivated to win in the last five games...

** in last five games for WAS, ATL most winnable... they play NYG twice, DAL and KC... very possible they lose out or only win one of the remaining games...

 
Last edited by a moderator:

TheFanatic

Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Wonder if the Bears are as hung over from their blowout as the Colts.

****************************

Playoffs: make that play from the goal line vs SEA and you'd be right in it. Horrible play calling at the end.

****************************

Tough question for Rams fans - would this be happening with Bradford at the helm?
Evidently it was happening with Bradford at the helm. Listening to a local columnist who knows his stuff (Miklatz) a couple days ago. He said the offense was shifted to a run first offense before Bradford went down. That they played three games with that offense and they were 2-1 with the loss being to Carolina and that Bradford had something like 7 TD's to 1 pick and averaged a QB rating of 111 for those three games.

I don't remember them running as much before Bradford went down, but he said they changed their offense before Bradford got injured. I just checked it. The two wins were against Jacksonville and Houston, so maybe I just chalked it up to chump on the other side of the ball.

That being said, those two games were Stacy's first real action. He got 14 carries for 78 yards and 18 carries for 79 yards. He didn't see more than 20 carries until the game after Bradford went down and he had 26, 27, and 26 carries in the next three games. So who knows if it is accurate, but Miklatz thinks so...

 

bulger2holt

Footballguy
Bradford was playing great before the injury. He was throwing lazers and moving the team up and down the field. Too bad the D and running game sucked when he was playing.

 

CalBear

Footballguy
Bob Magaw said:
how do you like his hands after the IND game?you are going to have to do another patented calbear prop up the misguided austin doom and gloom projection, grab bag excuse, switchey changey shuffle pretty soon.
Dude, you really need to take a chill pill. Austin's a rookie and at one point had proven nothing. Now he's proven that he's fast and can score in the open field. Maybe one day he'll prove he's a good receiver, but it'll take more than one game with two long receptions to do that.

 

Bob Magaw

Footballguy
Bob Magaw said:
how do you like his hands after the IND game?

you are going to have to do another patented calbear prop up the misguided austin doom and gloom projection, grab bag excuse, switchey changey shuffle pretty soon.
Dude, you really need to take a chill pill. Austin's a rookie and at one point had proven nothing. Now he's proven that he's fast and can score in the open field. Maybe one day he'll prove he's a good receiver, but it'll take more than one game with two long receptions to do that.
you edited out the context in which you lurched and careened from one improbable explanation to another, to justify your negative projection of his NFL future...

would you interpret that as a negative that, like harvin, he is a multi-purpose weapon that can also score on 65 yard runs?

* no thoughts on how your bizarre thesis that the rams improved defense and run game reflects poorly on bradford? you really need to elaborate and expand on those points, it would be a shame if the thread missed out on an opportunity for you to educate everybody... has unleashing the full scope of clemens manning/brady/brees/rodgers-like passing skills been opening up gaping holes for stacy and cunningham that weren't there before?

maybe the defense didn't play hard before because everybody hates the, what did you call him again, oh yeah, the golden boy, like you... that makes perfect sense on your part, keep up the great work in the thread (as outstanding counter-examples of coherent theories)...

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bob Magaw

Footballguy
Unless the QB play/offensive call changes, no.
the suspect play calling was noted a lot, especially earlier in the season... whatever he has been doing lately, it seems to be working (the austin call on the rushing score was vastly more creative use of him than how he was used in the first 4-6 weeks of the season)...

and while clemens probably isn't a top drawer replacement, despite that, the colts and bears might say the rams seemed pretty real to them...

i do think for a few reasons, they will be more competitive next year...

what if they emerge from the draft with WR watkins and FS clinton-dix?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

CalBear

Footballguy
Bob Magaw said:
how do you like his hands after the IND game?

you are going to have to do another patented calbear prop up the misguided austin doom and gloom projection, grab bag excuse, switchey changey shuffle pretty soon.
Dude, you really need to take a chill pill. Austin's a rookie and at one point had proven nothing. Now he's proven that he's fast and can score in the open field. Maybe one day he'll prove he's a good receiver, but it'll take more than one game with two long receptions to do that.
you edited out the context in which you lurched and careened from one improbable explanation to another, to justify your negative projection of his NFL future...

would you interpret that as a negative that, like harvin, he is a multi-purpose weapon that can also score on 65 yard runs?

* no thoughts on how your bizarre thesis that the rams improved defense and run game reflects poorly on bradford? you really need to elaborate and expand on those points, it would be a shame if the thread missed out on an opportunity for you to educate everybody... has unleashing the full scope of clemens manning/brady/brees/rodgers-like passing skills been opening up gaping holes for stacy and cunningham that weren't there before?

maybe the defense didn't play hard before because everybody hates the, what did you call him again, oh yeah, the golden boy, like you... that makes perfect sense on your part, keep up the great work in the thread (as outstanding counter-examples of coherent theories)...
Yes, I edited out your straw men. Keep beating them up if you enjoy that.

You'll have to explain why a swing pass to Austin is horrendous coaching, but an end-around to Austin is brilliant coaching.

If you're continuing with this argument, you'll also have to fabricate posts where I say anything positive about Kellen Clemens.

 

Bob Magaw

Footballguy
disowning what you said before is one strategy...

but you did say austin was used like jackson when he wasn't... you did imply that despite being same weight, jackson's 2" height made some kind of massive difference in their respective projections...

no straw men... if you changed your mind just admit it rather than employ the smoke screen...

same with improved defense and run game reflecting poorly on bradford... no need to fabricate when you aren't making sense just fine on your own without needing help... but if that is wrong, educate the thread on how that does make sense...

if you meant what you said and said what you meant, should be easy enough to clarify your position...

i've seen better in the incognito thread... this thread and the convoluted, ever mutating austin critique not representative of your best work...

 
Last edited by a moderator:

CalBear

Footballguy
disowning what you said before is one strategy...

but you did say austin was used like jackson when he wasn't... you did imply that despite being same weight, jackson's 2" height made some kind of massive difference in his their respective projections...

not straw man... if you changed your mind just admit rather than the smoke screen...

same with improved defense and run game reflecting poorly on bradford... no need to fabricate when you aren't making sense just fine on your own without needing help...
My comparison to Jackson was to show that good receivers can make plays however they get the ball. If Austin can't make a play when he gets a short pass, maybe he's not a good receiver. He's a rookie, maybe he'll become better, but if his schtick is to take end-arounds and fly routes, he's a role player at best.

If Austin is catching the ball flat-footed on the short routes, that's his fault and indication that he doesn't know how to play the receiver position yet. Which is predictable because he's not only a rookie, he's a rookie who mostly played out of the backfield.

Bradford averaged 37 pass attempts this year. Clemens is averaging 27. This suggests a shift in offensive philosophy due to Bradford being out. Clemens is putting up yards per attempt a full point ahead of Bradford (7.4 to 6.4), so the reduced number of attempts is still resulting in productive offense.

 

Bob Magaw

Footballguy
disowning what you said before is one strategy...but you did say austin was used like jackson when he wasn't... you did imply that despite being same weight, jackson's 2" height made some kind of massive difference in his their respective projections...not straw man... if you changed your mind just admit rather than the smoke screen...same with improved defense and run game reflecting poorly on bradford... no need to fabricate when you aren't making sense just fine on your own without needing help...
My comparison to Jackson was to show that good receivers can make plays however they get the ball. If Austin can't make a play when he gets a short pass, maybe he's not a good receiver. He's a rookie, maybe he'll become better, but if his schtick is to take end-arounds and fly routes, he's a role player at best. If Austin is catching the ball flat-footed on the short routes, that's his fault and indication that he doesn't know how to play the receiver position yet. Which is predictable because he's not only a rookie, he's a rookie who mostly played out of the backfield. Bradford averaged 37 pass attempts this year. Clemens is averaging 27. This suggests a shift in offensive philosophy due to Bradford being out. Clemens is putting up yards per attempt a full point ahead of Bradford (7.4 to 6.4), so the reduced number of attempts is still resulting in productive offense.
but you said austin was used the same as jackson to make some of those points, which was dead wrong... you will sometimes bend things to prove you are right... than later, you leave out the bent part, like you are doing now... jackson gets to run routes of greater diversity than austin did at the beginning of the season when you were trashing him, including more deep routes, because his coaches were more creative... by running more deep routes, CBs can't sit on his short routes, like they did with austin, when the OC kept calling the same repetitive short pass over and over... it definitely would impact jackson's game if he was used as monotonously on short routes like austin was at the beginning of the season... you superficially seized on one highlight of a successful RAC play on a short pass by jackson as constituting "proof" that usage had NOTHING to do with austin's early struggles... austin's second receiving TD against IND was a crossing route, but you never let your lack of knowledge about how the rams use him get in the way of pronouncing harsh judgements on him before... why start now? you are on a roll. :)

so is your point, if bradford had been handing the ball off to stacy and cunningham against CHI, the bears would have shut down the run game because they were selling out to stop clemens in the pass game!?! you are making this up as you go along, right? for most of bradford's seven starts, the rams coaches didn't know what they had in stacy... by the time clemens was starting, they did... so they used him more... clemens got to be the beneficiary, not bradford... if you don't think stacy/cunningham/austin had around 260 yards on 26 carries BECAUSE of clemens (how many 10 yard runs did they have against CHI - guess THAT series wasn't going to be three and out?)... do you think maybe it helps a QB be a more efficient passer, and to stay on schedule in down and distance situations when the run game gets 260 yards?

not EVERYTHING has to be about your pet theory that bradford drags the team down... you are seriously grasping at anything when you are willing to go to the length of chalking up the resurgent run game to bradford's absence and not simply due to the obvious and face value explanation that the coaches didn't yet know earlier in the season (for the majority of bradford's starts) everything they had in stacy, one of the biggest breakout players in the league at any position (stacy would have done just as well if bradford hadn't been injured and was handing the ball off to him instead of clemens)...

you also implied in your first post in the thread, the rams defensive improvement had something to do with bradford going down... where does that even come from? its like you are grimly determined to post ANYTHING, whether it makes sense or not, to tie all possible failings to bradford... even the defensive failings earlier in the year... and conversely, any successes of the defense must be due to his absence... that is stretching credibility way past the breaking point...

 
Last edited by a moderator:

CalBear

Footballguy
Bob Magaw said:
you also implied in your first post in the thread, the rams defensive improvement had something to do with bradford going down... where does that even come from? its like you are grimly determined to post ANYTHING, whether it makes sense or not, to tie all possible failings to bradford... even the defensive failings earlier in the year... and conversely, any successes of the defense must be due to his absence... that is stretching credibility way past the breaking point...
Actually, it's like you are grimly determined to defend Bradford no matter what evidence appears. Like a known-mediocre journeyman QB averaging a yard per attempt more than Bradford did, with the same coaches and same players. Or that the offense is averaging 70 yards and 5 points more per game than it did under Bradford, and that the Rams just managed two consecutive wins against division-leading teams, when Bradford's three wins this year came against teams with a combined record of 11-22. (His losses were against teams with a combined record of 23-21).

I don't care about Bradford, I really don't. I just believe in Occam's Razor; the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. The simplest explanation for Bradford's career of mediocrity is that he's a mediocre QB. Absent evidence to the contrary (and excuses are not evidence), I'm sticking with that hypothesis.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bob Magaw

Footballguy
exec summary - less is more

1 - rams beating CHI with 260 yards rushing has nothing to do with bradford and clemens.
2 - rams beating IND by holding them to 8 points has nothing to do with bradford and clemens.
3 - bradford and clemens did not work with the same players... stacy, the rams best RB, had only 1 carry in first month...

* to the thread, just kidding cal bear, like i'm sure he is kidding me... when i say hater, meant no differently than the spirit in which he has called me fanboy... i know i can always sense the good natured fun and implicit respect surrounding and reaching through his words on the screen in all of our exchanges.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

TheFanatic

Footballguy
exec summary of above

1 - rams beating CHI with 260 yards rushing has nothing to do with bradford and clemens.

2 - rams beating IND by holding them to 8 points has nothing to do with bradford and clemens.

3 - bradford and clemens did not work with the same players... stacy, the rams best RB, had only 1 carry in first month...
Stacy had 14 carries against Jacksonville, three games before Sam went down. I think he has 16 in the next game against Houston and was in the teens again against Carolina. He has gotten 25+ in every game with Clemens other than the last one when he got injured, but was on pace for that same amount. To say Sam didn't work with him is not accurate. But Stacy has worked more with Clemens...

 

Bob Magaw

Footballguy
exec summary of above

1 - rams beating CHI with 260 yards rushing has nothing to do with bradford and clemens.

2 - rams beating IND by holding them to 8 points has nothing to do with bradford and clemens.

3 - bradford and clemens did not work with the same players... stacy, the rams best RB, had only 1 carry in first month...
Stacy had 14 carries against Jacksonville, three games before Sam went down. I think he has 16 in the next game against Houston and was in the teens again against Carolina. He has gotten 25+ in every game with Clemens other than the last one when he got injured, but was on pace for that same amount. To say Sam didn't work with him is not accurate. But Stacy has worked more with Clemens...
it was an exec summary... i could have given more detail, but it might have been less of a summary...

did not work with the same players IN THE SAME WAY would have been a more precise articulation of my meaning and nearly as concise, so better put that way...

bradford did not work with stacy in the first month...

the QB completed six games... so in only 1/3 of those games, did he get the benefit of unquestionably the top RB on the rams... clemens has had the benefit of stacy's presence and meaningful carries in all four of his starts, so 100%.

in this context, calbear was trying to draw conclusions about the relative performance of bradford and clemens, extending to looking at their respective records, and schedules... this itself was imo flawed, in taking it as a given that of course it was a sign clemens was superior to bradford, because he had helped defeat division leaders IND and CHI... teams so awesome, the colts scored 8 points and the bears gave up around 260 rushing yards and a defensive TD (and again, having nothing to do with bradford and clemens, but the run game and the defense)...

but to compare the two, and in an attempt to claim they had equal chances by pointing out they had the same players, and not also acknowledge that there was disparate, unequal use of the top RB on the team, and therefore disparate, unequal benefit to them, IMO, is more wrong than right, in that context, and even unintentionally, at best incomplete, and at worst misleading, as calbear stated it...

 
Last edited by a moderator:

CalBear

Footballguy
but to compare the two, and in an attempt to claim they had equal chances by pointing out they had the same players, and not also acknowledge that there was disparate, unequal use of the top RB on the team, and therefore disparate, unequal benefit to them, IMO, is more wrong than right, in that context, and even unintentionally, at best incomplete, and at worst misleading, as calbear stated it...
There was disparate use of the RBs because with Bradford, the management was still beholden to the idea that they'd acquired their franchise QB. Now that he's out, they don't have to force throwing the ball, so they run more, which is a good idea when you have a mediocre QB (as they have for the past four years).

But between you burying us in words and deleting my posts, I've had enough. Good job, "moderator."

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bob Magaw

Footballguy
but to compare the two, and in an attempt to claim they had equal chances by pointing out they had the same players, and not also acknowledge that there was disparate, unequal use of the top RB on the team, and therefore disparate, unequal benefit to them, IMO, is more wrong than right, in that context, and even unintentionally, at best incomplete, and at worst misleading, as calbear stated it...
There was disparate use of the RBs because with Bradford, the management was still beholden to the idea that they'd acquired their franchise QB. Now that he's out, they don't have to force throwing the ball, so they run more, which is a good idea when you have a mediocre QB (as they have for the past four years).

But between you burying us in words and deleting my posts, I've had enough. Good job, "moderator."
that is pretty thin... more likely they didn't realize how good stacy was (practically nobody did)... whatever the pass/run ratio was intended to be, the rams would have had a better chance to win with the far more talented stacy in the lineup than richardson, that much is clear... if they knew how good he was, he would have gotten more than 1 carry in the first month... maybe he wouldn't have been used as much as he is now (they did gradually increase his carries even after he started playing the first month)... or maybe they didn't trust him with protections initially... injuries can thrust rookies into more prominent roles that they didn't look back from...

for whatever reason or combination of reasons, and you can explain however you want why you can not or will not concede such a fundamental, elementary point, the fact remains unchanged that bradford did not have as much time with the team's best RB as clemens has on a percentage basis... so any conclusions you may have drawn about the relative opportunity of bradford and clemens, and what they did with their respective opportunities, is tainted on that basis...

good job to you as well, your "slant" has been appreciated...

* sorry if you were offended by my pointing out what i thought were several mistakes in your take... you certainly have pointed out what you thought were mistakes in my posts in the past (with attendant fanboy jabs)...

not sure if the enough part referenced this particular debate or period... i agree with all of your posts in the incognito thread, with no exceptions... strangely, for whatever reason, i can't think of too many football related posts where this was the case... i completely agree, there have been enough previously aborted attempts at finding common ground to suggest that just isn't going to be forthcoming... maybe i am 100% at fault and you have never contributed in any way to previous failed attempts to communicate... i'll take responsibility for that, and honor your comment...

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top