- Joined
- Sep 7, 2010
- Messages
- 246
I've been reading a lot of comments about the play calling and I think it's pretty much a consensus that we all think it should be vastly improved. The biggest problem I have is the predictability of the Rams offense early in games. Obviously the Rams are going to be predictable after they're down 3 scores in each of the last three games. That goes without saying. However, in so many football games a team's best possession of the game is the first one because it's "scripted," meaning the coach has pre-planned out the mix of play-action, different route combinations, different plays out of old formations, specific plays out of new personnel groups to work a predicted mismatch, new plays designed just for that defense, etc. And that brings us to our 2013 St. Louis Rams, the MPSOT (Most Predictable Show On Turf). And they're brutal in the first quarter. It is a very bad sign that defenses already have our offense "figured out" this early in the season and can stop everything we do without seeming to have to try that hard.
It was stunning to be in the dome last night. For those of you that weren't, remember how many sideline throws were undercut and almost picked off? When your routes are all the same in the same situations, the best receivers on earth can't "get separation." I am now fully on the bandwagon that this is a coaching (Brian Schottenheimer only) issue. There were no screen plays called early (or late for that matter) to keep the defensive line on their toes and slow down the pass rush when the run game wasn't working, although I would contend that a few screen plays in the first quarter would open up the run game as well. Forget about finding "creative" ways to get Tavon the ball, just don't be predictable and he'll get open and then make plays on his own!
So back to the title of this post (which wasn't intended to be a rant but is starting to lean that way, forgive me and let me see if I can pull it back ON course). When I played BASEBALL in college (not football), we had 70 guys in the team. I played NAIA ball at a small school so there was no such thing as film or scouting reports (unless we had faced a guy before). But we were relentless in game. Every single player that wasn't playing had multiple responsibilities during a game. A bunch of guys were assigned to stealing signs. It didn't always work but if we got a sign that was huge. However we also had a contingency of guys that were nothing but CIA. They always wore sunglasses and spent their time (I was often one my freshman year when I wasn't playing) watching the other dugout to see if THEY were stealing OUR signs. That way if we ever suspected they had something or were close we would change out signs up. The point is this as it relates to the Rams; in all of the time spent scouting the opposition and watching film, is anyone on the Rams staff (outside of Scho(i?)tty) scouting the Rams for their tendencies? I don't think it's possible that they are doing this and it's confounding to me. If they were scouting themselves, they would see how incredibly predictable they are and could make a massive improvement in offense just by improving play calling. I wish I had a way to convey this to the Rams because I'm convinced they would be massively better just by scouting themselves.
Sorry for the length of that explanation but I'm curious to hear what you guys think of this. Am I way off base and is this done already? I think it's not because if so the guy who does that should be canned NOW.
It was stunning to be in the dome last night. For those of you that weren't, remember how many sideline throws were undercut and almost picked off? When your routes are all the same in the same situations, the best receivers on earth can't "get separation." I am now fully on the bandwagon that this is a coaching (Brian Schottenheimer only) issue. There were no screen plays called early (or late for that matter) to keep the defensive line on their toes and slow down the pass rush when the run game wasn't working, although I would contend that a few screen plays in the first quarter would open up the run game as well. Forget about finding "creative" ways to get Tavon the ball, just don't be predictable and he'll get open and then make plays on his own!
So back to the title of this post (which wasn't intended to be a rant but is starting to lean that way, forgive me and let me see if I can pull it back ON course). When I played BASEBALL in college (not football), we had 70 guys in the team. I played NAIA ball at a small school so there was no such thing as film or scouting reports (unless we had faced a guy before). But we were relentless in game. Every single player that wasn't playing had multiple responsibilities during a game. A bunch of guys were assigned to stealing signs. It didn't always work but if we got a sign that was huge. However we also had a contingency of guys that were nothing but CIA. They always wore sunglasses and spent their time (I was often one my freshman year when I wasn't playing) watching the other dugout to see if THEY were stealing OUR signs. That way if we ever suspected they had something or were close we would change out signs up. The point is this as it relates to the Rams; in all of the time spent scouting the opposition and watching film, is anyone on the Rams staff (outside of Scho(i?)tty) scouting the Rams for their tendencies? I don't think it's possible that they are doing this and it's confounding to me. If they were scouting themselves, they would see how incredibly predictable they are and could make a massive improvement in offense just by improving play calling. I wish I had a way to convey this to the Rams because I'm convinced they would be massively better just by scouting themselves.
Sorry for the length of that explanation but I'm curious to hear what you guys think of this. Am I way off base and is this done already? I think it's not because if so the guy who does that should be canned NOW.