hypothetical theory speculation: defense first

[JdashSTL]

Regarding Bradford, I'm not going to get into 4th quarter situational statistics with an injured sophomore QB with next to zero offensive support for two straight years. Year one - green. Year two - out the window as far as I'm concerned. Those stats don't tell me anything.

Well, cap'n, I begs to differ.

Those stats are universal across the situation, including when he is healthy, including when the OL only allowed 5.4% sacks, and including when he had guys like Amendola, Clayton, Lloyd, Big Mike, and a "could play and was actually productive that day" healthy Alexander.

It's pretty uniform.

I just don't think he was ready to play under that kind of pressure yet. The redzone stats echo that too btw.

Look at that list of names at the skill positions for Bradford. He played with Clayton 5 games. He wasnt healthy when he got to play with Lloyd for a few games. Big Mike has been banged up a lot. Alexander is always limited. Amendola and Gibson are the WRs hes played with the most, they are #3 and #4 WRs.

Bradford has had "glimpses." Against an eventual 13-3 Falcons team he was leading us down the field late in the 4th Qtr but that drive ended with a poorly executed shovel pass and the Falcons put the game away. Against the Cardinals we were down 20-10 but he led us back to tie the game. Cardinals end up winning in overtime.

This just not a concern for me right now. I know you can bring up that this goes back to his college days but hes just about to go into his 3rd NFL season. I have plenty of patience lol.

 

[Anonymous]

Regarding Bradford, I'm not going to get into 4th quarter situational statistics with an injured sophomore QB with next to zero offensive support for two straight years. Year one - green. Year two - out the window as far as I'm concerned. Those stats don't tell me anything.

Well, cap'n, I begs to differ.

Those stats are universal across the situation, including when he is healthy, including when the OL only allowed 5.4% sacks, and including when he had guys like Amendola, Clayton, Lloyd, Big Mike, and a "could play and was actually productive that day" healthy Alexander.

It's pretty uniform.

I just don't think he was ready to play under that kind of pressure yet. The redzone stats echo that too btw.

Look at that list of names at the skill positions for Bradford. He played with Clayton 5 games. He wasnt healthy when he got to play with Lloyd for a few games. Big Mike has been banged up a lot. Alexander is always limited. Amendola and Gibson are the WRs hes played with the most, they are #3 and #4 WRs.

Bradford has had "glimpses." Against an eventual 13-3 Falcons team he was leading us down the field late in the 4th Qtr but that drive ended with a poorly executed shovel pass and the Falcons put the game away. Against the Cardinals we were down 20-10 but he led us back to tie the game. Cardinals end up winning in overtime.

This just not a concern for me right now. I know you can bring up that this goes back to his college days but hes just about to go into his 3rd NFL season. I have plenty of patience lol.

Everything said by you about the conditions and the roster was said be me myself virtually every single game over the last 2 years--so it's not news. We all know the roster. And the circumstances.

BUT. Given all that how often has he played well when behind by 1-8. In any circumstances. At all, ever. Under any conditions. Going back to college. It wasn't common. It's still an open question and that includes the college record.

And you know who would agree with me? Bradford.

You know which of the 2--Bradford or me--would cut him a break? Me. I would argue that its developmental and that when he gains more confidence from experience he will show us what he can do in comeback situations and playing behind in winnable games.

In fact, he started to do it a little more in 2011 under worse conditions than he had in 2010. See the 2nd ARZ game.

St. Louis Rams at 9:11 ARI STL

1st and 10 at ARI 43 (Shotgun) S.Bradford pass short right to S.Spach to ARZ 40 for 3 yards (R.Marshall).

2nd and 7 at ARI 40 (Shotgun) S.Bradford pass deep right to L.Kendricks to ARZ 16 for 24 yards (R.Johnson).

1st and 10 at ARI 16 (Shotgun) S.Bradford pass deep left to B.Lloyd for 16 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

DRIVE TOTALS: ARI 20, STL 20, 3 plays, 43 yards, 1:25 elapsed

Being clear-eyed and realistic is not slamming a guy.

 

[RamFan503]

I suppose all this depends on how far off you feel the defense to be. Get our DBs back, pick up a DT and an OLB or two and this defense is ready to rock.

But give them another offense like we saw last year and they will look EXACTLY like the defense we saw last season. We saw a D that came out playing hard in virtually every game only to be gassed by an offense that couldn't stay on the field or score any points.

I'm not saying we will be some sort of offensive juggernaut but I don't think that the defense is where we need to spend the resources. IMO the defense would be fairly decent if we didn't add a single piece and we got healthy. But they will once again look like crap if the offense can't do three things. Our offense absolutely HAS to stay on the field longer. Our offense absolutely HAS to score more points. Our offense absolutely HAS to do enough to keep the opposing team from being able to ALWAYS play their game.

This is why I totally disagree with the premise here. I think Fisher will concentrate most on the offense. And not because he believes in the reincarnation of the GSOT by any stretch or that he thinks the Rams can be the next New Orleans in a year. He will concentrate on offense because he knows that without at least a decent offense, the defense will suck as well unless they are Baltimore good. The defense needs to be able to play with the lead from time to time. The offense needs to be able to put the other team in a position of weakness. Otherwise we will just continue to see the other teams' best, game after game.

Oh, bye the way, saying that Bradford doesn't play well when behind by 1-8 points is a meaningless stat to the nth degree at this point in his career with the talent (or lack thereof) and lack of any appreciable time to throw as he has dealt with in his first two years. Gee... give the defense a piss poor O-line, absolutely NO receivers they have to double team, and let's see how good ANY Qb's stats would be when playing from behind. Give the dude some talent and even a little time to throw and I'm just guessing he doesn't need to learn how to play from behind - he just does it.

 

[superfan24]

I suppose all this depends on how far off you feel the defense to be. Get our DBs back, pick up a DT and an OLB or two and this defense is ready to rock.

But give them another offense like we saw last year and they will look EXACTLY like the defense we saw last season. We saw a D that came out playing hard in virtually every game only to be gassed by an offense that couldn't stay on the field or score any points.

I'm not saying we will be some sort of offensive juggernaut but I don't think that the defense is where we need to spend the resources. IMO the defense would be fairly decent if we didn't add a single piece and we got healthy. But they will once again look like crap if the offense can't do three things. Our offense absolutely HAS to stay on the field longer. Our offense absolutely HAS to score more points. Our offense absolutely HAS to do enough to keep the opposing team from being able to ALWAYS play their game.

This is why I totally disagree with the premise here. I think Fisher will concentrate most on the offense. And not because he believes in the reincarnation of the GSOT by any stretch or that he thinks the Rams can be the next New Orleans in a year. He will concentrate on offense because he knows that without at least a decent offense, the defense will suck as well unless they are Baltimore good. The defense needs to be able to play with the lead from time to time. The offense needs to be able to put the other team in a position of weakness. Otherwise we will just continue to see the other teams' best, game after game.

Oh, bye the way, saying that Bradford doesn't play well when behind by 1-8 points is a meaningless stat to the nth degree at this point in his career with the talent (or lack thereof) and lack of any appreciable time to throw as he has dealt with in his first two years. Gee... give the defense a piss poor O-line, absolutely NO receivers they have to double team, and let's see how good ANY Qb's stats would be when playing from behind. Give the dude some talent and even a little time to throw and I'm just guessing he doesn't need to learn how to play from behind - he just does it.

Damn I hate when I agree with a trojan :nono: :mrgreen:
But all I want for the D is a huge DT to clog up the middle and allow CL and Quinn some extra room to do their thing. We are not that far away on O either, just need to stay healthy and get a WR.
I'm ready for another big surprise year

 

[bluecoconuts]

Regarding Bradford, I'm not going to get into 4th quarter situational statistics with an injured sophomore QB with next to zero offensive support for two straight years. Year one - green. Year two - out the window as far as I'm concerned. Those stats don't tell me anything.

Well, cap'n, I begs to differ.

Those stats are universal across the situation, including when he is healthy, including when the OL only allowed 5.4% sacks, and including when he had guys like Amendola, Clayton, Lloyd, Big Mike, and a "could play and was actually productive that day" healthy Alexander.

It's pretty uniform.

I just don't think he was ready to play under that kind of pressure yet. The redzone stats echo that too btw.

Look at that list of names at the skill positions for Bradford. He played with Clayton 5 games. He wasnt healthy when he got to play with Lloyd for a few games. Big Mike has been banged up a lot. Alexander is always limited. Amendola and Gibson are the WRs hes played with the most, they are #3 and #4 WRs.

Bradford has had "glimpses." Against an eventual 13-3 Falcons team he was leading us down the field late in the 4th Qtr but that drive ended with a poorly executed shovel pass and the Falcons put the game away. Against the Cardinals we were down 20-10 but he led us back to tie the game. Cardinals end up winning in overtime.

This just not a concern for me right now. I know you can bring up that this goes back to his college days but hes just about to go into his 3rd NFL season. I have plenty of patience lol.

Everything said by you about the conditions and the roster was said be me myself virtually every single game over the last 2 years--so it's not news. We all know the roster. And the circumstances.

BUT. Given all that how often has he played well when behind by 1-8. In any circumstances. At all, ever. Under any conditions. Going back to college. It wasn't common. It's still an open question and that includes the college record.

And you know who would agree with me? Bradford.

You know which of the 2--Bradford or me--would cut him a break? Me. I would argue that its developmental and that when he gains more confidence from experience he will show us what he can do in comeback situations and playing behind in winnable games.

In fact, he started to do it a little more in 2011 under worse conditions than he had in 2010. See the 2nd ARZ game.

St. Louis Rams at 9:11 ARI STL

1st and 10 at ARI 43 (Shotgun) S.Bradford pass short right to S.Spach to ARZ 40 for 3 yards (R.Marshall).

2nd and 7 at ARI 40 (Shotgun) S.Bradford pass deep right to L.Kendricks to ARZ 16 for 24 yards (R.Johnson).

1st and 10 at ARI 16 (Shotgun) S.Bradford pass deep left to B.Lloyd for 16 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

DRIVE TOTALS: ARI 20, STL 20, 3 plays, 43 yards, 1:25 elapsed

Being clear-eyed and realistic is not slamming a guy.

Every QB can improve on things, it doesn't matter if you're Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Cam Newton, Tim Tebow, everyone goes into the offseason and looks at things and says "I need to do ____ better.".... If they don't, then they don't last.

Now can Sam do things better? Sure he can, everyone can. But stats don't tell the entire story, they never do. In those pressure situations how many times did we try and fail because Sam threw a bad pick that was all on him, or missed a wide open receiver, or didn't throw to the right guy? Not as much as a receiver ran the wrong route, the O-Line failed to block, nobody was able to get separation, or just straight dropped the pass.

The point is, other people can mess up, and stats might end up making it look like Sam can't handle the pressure. Looking at this offense, especially before the ankle injury, it was apparent that Sam was not a weak part of the offense (as opposed to Sanchez in NY), but rather a strength. The Giants game stands out to me the most, with Jackson out. I had so many friends sending me texts like "Wow, it's like he has to play by himself, I feel bad for him.".... I remember Sam took something like a 24 yard sack because he motioned Kendricks over twice to run a flat for a dump off that probably would have gone for a first down.. Kendricks didn't notice it and he had just just hike the ball and try to scramble to make it work.. Of course it didn't.

Things like that, on the stat sheet people go "Oh, he took a huge sack, he needs to be better in these high pressure situations." but it wasn't his fault that the players couldn't do what they needed to do. Or that Salas drop on 3rd down in the redzone, that's another. Or the Williams fumble.

My point is, we're not naive enough to think that Sam is a HOF QB who doesn't need to work on anything. Everyone needs work, he's young. But Bradford can't do it all, he needs players around him that can do their job, so he can do his. Hell, the lack of defense was a big issue for a while because with the Rams playing from behind constantly teams were able to just pin their ears back and go after him.

 

[RamFan503]

Damn I hate when I agree with a trojan

Man you must have a lot of built up hatred. :7up:

 

[Anonymous]

Now can Sam do things better? Sure he can, everyone can. But stats don't tell the entire story, they never do.

Of course not. I wonder if there really is a poster anywhere in Ramdon who says "yes stats tell the whole story."

And, saying that all qbs could improve isn't the issue. How good is this one NOW, at this stage of his development, considering he had a setback year? (The setback wasn't cause of him, but it is nevertheless there, and real.)

And, all the stat indicates is what we saw. Bradford MOSTLY decreased in effectiveness when the Rams were behind by 1-8 points. I am just not going to deny what I saw with that. On top of it, as I said, his college games raised the same question (they were mixed when it came to this situation.)

It's hard to talk about, though, if any realistic assessment, gets, in the extreme, treated like bashing, or, in another extreme, is just vehemently denied. And, yeah, those extremes are out there.

Fact of the matter is, he actually improved in that regard in at least one late game where his supporting cast was WORSE (ie. the OL) PLUS he was playing on the ankle. Not saying obviously he improved BECAUSE the cast was bad, but that does indicate that the cast itself doesn't explain everything.

So it is something I will watch. In fact that's the only argument I am making. When I tick off the traits I want to see in a qb, that's one of the ones I watch for.