Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 51
  1. #31
    ramsbruce's Avatar
    ramsbruce is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Here
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,463
    Rep Power
    50

    Re: Defense 2007 = Defense 2000???? Maybe

    Quote Originally Posted by r8rh8rmike View Post
    I don't think the secondary is really our problem Tx. As a unit they had to try and perform in the worst kind of situation with almost zero support up front and actually held their own a lot of the time IMO. I'm not sure it matters who you put back there if the opposing quarterback has all day to throw and pick you apart.

    As for Clements, spending $80 million for a player who could only marginally help the defense would have been a mistake. Teams don't throw at us, they run on us at will, with good reason. Paying crazy money for a cover corner who would rarely get the chance to make an impact would not have been the answer.
    Quote Originally Posted by txramsfan View Post
    Well, you sort of validated my point. Here's why. If we get zero support up front, don't we need better support back behind? Clements isn't a marginal player. He is much better than Bartell, Holt and Bruce and Pace are getting up there, and time is of the essence. If the Rams can't find someone up front to help the D, then Clements would have been better than standing pat. As it looks now, the Rams better score 40 a game.
    Both good arguments, but I go with Mike on this one. With little to no pass rush it won't matter who we stick back there in the secondary, so giving a big contract to Clements who is real good, but not great, isn't the answer when we have many holes to fill.

    BRUUUUUUUUCE


  2. #32
    txramsfan's Avatar
    txramsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Poplar Bluff, MO
    Age
    50
    Posts
    7,266
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: Defense 2007 = Defense 2000???? Maybe

    That's what I like about discussion like this bruce.....we can do it without yelling at each other. mike and I have debates like this quite often and it always turns out being informative. For me at least.

    Keep the discussions coming. This is healthy.

  3. #33
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,326
    Rep Power
    127

    Re: Defense 2007 = Defense 2000???? Maybe

    Quote Originally Posted by txramsfan View Post
    Well, you sort of validated my point. Here's why. If we get zero support up front, don't we need better support back behind? Clements isn't a marginal player. He is much better than Bartell, Holt and Bruce and Pace are getting up there, and time is of the essence. If the Rams can't find someone up front to help the D, then Clements would have been better than standing pat. As it looks now, the Rams better score 40 a game.
    There is no doubt that Clements is a great corner and in the right situation would pay huge dividends. I just don't think when we have a defense that teams will almost exclusively try to run on, a player like Clements will be able to make much of a difference, especially for $80 million which is what I was referring to with regard to marginality.

    I'm still confident we will make a few more moves that will improve things and get that must score number down to 30 points.

  4. #34
    txramsfan's Avatar
    txramsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Poplar Bluff, MO
    Age
    50
    Posts
    7,266
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: Defense 2007 = Defense 2000???? Maybe

    Well, here's something else.....(always something else with me....lol)

    IF the Rams had a secondary that is tough to throw against, because last year we weren't that tough, would that help the LB's in run pursuit?

  5. #35
    ramsbruce's Avatar
    ramsbruce is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Here
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,463
    Rep Power
    50

    Re: Defense 2007 = Defense 2000???? Maybe

    Quote Originally Posted by txramsfan View Post
    Well, here's something else.....(always something else with me....lol)

    IF the Rams had a secondary that is tough to throw against, because last year we weren't that tough, would that help the LB's in run pursuit?
    If our D Line can't keep the opposing teams O Line off of our LBs there isn't much hope of freeing up our LBs in run pursuit. Last year after a few games the NFL knew we couldn't stop the run, so it didn't even matter that much that our secondary was young and somewhat inexperienced because teams didn't need to throw on us, teams loaded up and ran on us and our D Line could do nothing to stop them and keep them off of our LBs so we could make a play.
    BRUUUUUUUUCE


  6. #36
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,326
    Rep Power
    127

    Re: Defense 2007 = Defense 2000???? Maybe

    Quote Originally Posted by ramsbruce View Post
    If our D Line can't keep the opposing teams O Line off of our LBs there isn't much hope of freeing up our LBs in run pursuit. Last year after a few games the NFL knew we couldn't stop the run, so it didn't even matter that much that our secondary was young and somewhat inexperienced because teams didn't need to throw on us, teams loaded up and ran on us and our D Line could do nothing to stop them and keep them off of our LBs so we could make a play.
    Agreed. If things don't improve at the initial point of attack, our LB's and DB's will continue to be compromised, regardless of their skill level.

  7. #37
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,605
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Defense 2007 = Defense 2000???? Maybe

    There is no such thing as a secondary to tough to throw against Tx. You could put 4 HOFs out there and even they would get torched by even an average offense if there's no pass rush.

  8. #38
    Bar-bq's Avatar
    Bar-bq is offline Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,909
    Rep Power
    94

    Re: Defense 2007 = Defense 2000???? Maybe

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    There is no such thing as a secondary to tough to throw against Tx. You could put 4 HOFs out there and even they would get torched by even an average offense if there's no pass rush.
    I'm not so sure. You have to dig what Champ Bailey's done in Denver with a line that isn't by any means fantastic, but is far from lousy. It's a solid line. Bailey shuts out half the field. He is tough to throw against.

    If we could find ourselves that sort of player (Cough...Hill...Cough)(Cough...If we're very lucky...Cough) I'll bet we could do the same, which forces the other team to throw towards the other members of our secondary and to run the ball more ooften than not. If we can get...stability on the line, solid is all i'm asking, i think it goes lengths towards helpin the defense.

  9. #39
    txramsfan's Avatar
    txramsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Poplar Bluff, MO
    Age
    50
    Posts
    7,266
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: Defense 2007 = Defense 2000???? Maybe

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    There is no such thing as a secondary to tough to throw against Tx. You could put 4 HOFs out there and even they would get torched by even an average offense if there's no pass rush.

    Well, then I hope Bulger dosen't develop a rotator cuff problem because our D line is terrible and they aren't going to get any better. And if that is where everything starts and ends on D, then why are we spending all our money on offense? I would have settled for one great WR, let one go, and spent some money on the D line.

  10. #40
    keith m. klink Guest

    Re: Defense 2007 = Defense 2000???? Maybe

    i wish more people would listen to nick, and stop fretting,

  11. #41
    txramsfan's Avatar
    txramsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Poplar Bluff, MO
    Age
    50
    Posts
    7,266
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: Defense 2007 = Defense 2000???? Maybe

    Ok, everyone is saying that we need to majorly improve the initial point of contact. So, let's trade up and get Branch. If not, and the Rams don't necessarily improve the front line.....then all this "fretting" better go to the front office instead of on ClanRam.

  12. #42
    RamOfDenmark is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Age
    30
    Posts
    1,071
    Rep Power
    22

    Re: Defense 2007 = Defense 2000???? Maybe

    Quote Originally Posted by txramsfan View Post
    Ok, everyone is saying that we need to majorly improve the initial point of contact. So, let's trade up and get Branch. If not, and the Rams don't necessarily improve the front line.....then all this "fretting" better go to the front office instead of on ClanRam.
    It might be worth a try, how far up would we need to trade to get Branch? I'm thinking maybe 5th to grab him before Washington does, they need a guy to play alongside Griffin on their line I think so they could grab him at number 6. It would be very expensive though, we might be better served grabbing Okoye further down although I very much doubt he would be on the board when we pick, we'd probably need to trade up a few spots to get him too.

  13. #43
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,605
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Defense 2007 = Defense 2000???? Maybe

    Quote Originally Posted by Bar-bq View Post
    I'm not so sure. You have to dig what Champ Bailey's done in Denver with a line that isn't by any means fantastic, but is far from lousy. It's a solid line. Bailey shuts out half the field. He is tough to throw against.

    If we could find ourselves that sort of player (Cough...Hill...Cough)(Cough...If we're very lucky...Cough) I'll bet we could do the same, which forces the other team to throw towards the other members of our secondary and to run the ball more ooften than not. If we can get...stability on the line, solid is all i'm asking, i think it goes lengths towards helpin the defense.

    How ironic is your name in this discussion, because that's exactly what any corner would be without a pass rush.

  14. #44
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,565
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Defense 2007 = Defense 2000???? Maybe

    1. This is a nice discussion....especially for the offseason.

    2. At this point the 2007 defense looks exactly like the 2006 defense. All 11 starters are still under contract, and the top 11 tacklers are returning. It seems to me, even if we did nothing in the draft, the 2007 defense is most like going to perform at a level near the 2006 team.

    3. The 2006 defense (which should be close to the 2007 defense) gave up 23.8 points per game, not 30 points per game, not 35 points per game, not 40 points per game........but 23.8 points per game. That's not insurmountable.

    4. The 2006 defense = 23.8 points per game (28th), 335 yards per game (23rd).
    The 2000 defense = 29.4 points per game (31st), 361 yards per game (24th).
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  15. #45
    JRoc's Avatar
    JRoc is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Age
    29
    Posts
    43
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Defense 2007 = Defense 2000???? Maybe

    If we address the title of this thread, ie the suggestion that the current D is as bad as that of 2000, HU really does put a lot in perspective. Many of us have been talking a lot about it without actually looking at the facts and figures.

    We have the same players as last year, with a few nice additions, so we're no worse. We're in our second season of Haslett's system so we can only get better at executing it.

    We can't expect miracles from Linehan and co. They inherited a very poor D and have improved it a lot in just a year. Last years D was hugely improved, especially in the secondary, over the D of 2005.

    We could really do with a big DT but there's none available in FA. All we can do at the moment is hope for a good draft and perhaps for some june 1st cuts that the Rams could sign(though that's noy very likely).

    Overall the team is in a much better position than it was this time last year.there's no point moaning over what we can't change. Until the draft there's not going to be any difference makers the Rams can sign on D, so we'll just have to live with it and hope for an improvement from the guys we have now.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •