Boras' offense was already regressing at the end of the season, especially at the QB position. Only some of that was on Keenum. A fair amount of that was scheme.
Well that's just not true. There's also no way to qualify such a statement. Especially considering there was a mid-season coordinator change.
This offense can simply NOT play from behind. If the offense or defense gives up points, it's basically game over. This offense that they will run with Keenum or Mannion or Goff does not feature many routes where the QB can hit the receiver in stride to allow for YAC. As you'll recall, any time a Rams receiver got YAC, it was a surprise...a genuine surprise. "he caught it...AND HE'S STILL RUNNING?!!! GO!!! GO!!!"
That's a bit dramatic. But tell me how you don't see the correlation between not being able to score points and the QB position being lackluster? And how can you possibly know how many routes the playbook has that can hit the receiver in stride? Shit, half of the passing routes featured a smoke route or quick screen to Tavon that gets set up by blocking (disguised as run blocking) and he gets sprung for huge gains. That didn't surprise me. It happened a lot. There were also some decent routes that were drawn up for Kenny Britt that Keenum took advantage of once he finally got the start. Don't remember the Tampa game?
How'd we do with Boras' pass offense that Fisher and Snead think Goff is perfect for? Near historically bad in the modern era. What was it, 145 yds per game?
Why would it matter how many passing yards we have when we're a 50/50 run/pass team? The offense is all about ball control, clock management, running the ball, and play-action. Seems to me you're wanting them to evolve to a Coryell offense or something, and that's just not gonna happen. My OP was about how we're a balanced offense that simply missed a few opportunities to put games away due to lackluster quarterbacking. And remember, that was Boras' first year (and it wasn't even a full one). For all the grief we spew about QBs having to adjust to a new coordinator, wouldn't you think that would extend to the entire team as well? I think they adjusted okay for a mid-season switch, and now they're gonna have a full camp and preseason to master it. I'd hold off on judging it as a doomed offense for that reason alone.
I'm glad Cook is gone, but he was our best seam threat. It got so bad that over that last few weeks, we KNEW anything more than 3rd and 6 wasn't going to happen. And I realize that Case Keenum isn't star-spangled awesome, but he can execute a well designed play and throw the ball 10 yards downfield. He's a competent QB. Which begs the question, how, no matter who's the QB going back 4 years, can this team still not have a QB throw the ball past the 1st down marker?
Again. That's an indictment of the QB play last year. Which is exactly what I was suggesting in my OP. Throwing short of the sticks isn't something I saw a ton of; but even if I did, it's not an anomaly in this league. Defenses protect that area of the field for a reason in 3rd down situations. I agree that Keenum is a competent QB, and that's why I wanted to draft a shit ton more weapons. But at the same time, being 'competent' poses its own limitations. Will a 'great' QB be able to boost the offense? I don't see why not. Hell, even 'good' would have been good for a minimum of 4 additional wins last year.
Either, every single QB doesn't understand how to make a first down or the scheme absolutely STINKS ON ICE at accomplishing the Fisher's main goal after scoring points, which is to chew up clock, get 1st downs and convert 3rd downs. It's a combination of playcalling, scheme and personnel.
I'll just reinforce the point that Boras had half a season to implement his offense, so I don't see how anyone can point to scheme as being a problem. As it relates to making first downs (I assume you mean the bad 3rd down conversion rate), everyone knows that the Rams ranked dead last in 3rd down conversion percentage last year. But what they may not know, is that they jumped up 7 spots in the last 3 games - ahead of teams like Denver and Pitt. And that's because of Keenum and a half-year of new scheme. Imagine how much it can jump with a full year under Boras and a more proficient passer.
They're not changing the Offense. They BELIEVE in it. They believe they won with it (I am fairly certain they won in spite of it). They BELIEVE that it's tenable long term. I'm fairly certain that defenses have proven to adapt much faster than offenses unless they have unique elements. This Rams offense has no unique elements. And while Gurley ran for hundreds of yards in consecutive games, he also got held to around 50 a fair number of times. Without Gurley breaking long runs, the offense stalls, the box is stacked and Johnny Hekker gets the Jimmy Leg from punting every few minutes.
Of course they're not changing the offense. And it is tenable long term. It's even more dangerous in January and February, because what they run is EXACTLY what you need when you face the tougher defenses in the league in the playoffs. I reject the notion that this offense has no unique elements. There was a feature video illustrating exactly what made it unique - and that's being able to run multiple plays out of the same exact formation with disguised looks. While that's not ground-breaking or anything, it is something that eliminates the possibility of defenses knowing what you're gonna do.
But they aren't going to do that. They are going to keep trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. They're going to keep trying to run this quasi-WCO with other elements duct-taped on with miscast personnel and a scheme that doesn't take advantage of the box stacking that happens with Gurley in the backfield.
I don't understand how you feel that they're trying to jam a square peg in a round hole. They drafted a ton of linemen, picked up the best RB in the league, and are finally in a position to improve on the QB position. The last part being all you need to succeed if you're a ground & pound team with a stellar defense. There has to be a limitless amount of analysts and football professionals who parrot the axiom "no matter what you do, you're not going to win in this league without a QB." While true, it's hardly the only thing required for success. 7 of the top 10 teams in terms of passing yards didn't even make the playoffs last year. I'd be willing to bet fans of those teams would GLADLY trade in some of those passing yards for a stout run game and good defense. Similar to how you'd trade in facets of our offense for a bunch of passing yards. The recipe for success, however, lies square in the middle. And that's why I started this thread. To illustrate how better (or more) passing was the only thing that held us back last year. I still haven't seen where you (or anyone else) has proven that's not the case.
