Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17
  1. #1
    elAcky Guest

    Getting our hopeless defence back on track

    Lots of discussion on best way to address our defensive woes and thought I'd share my opinion and solicit yours…I think that it is unlikely that there will be any major changes this year so I'm concentrating on changes this offseason.

    1/ We need to address the coaching… I don’t think I'll get many kickbacks by stating that Marmie needs to go and a proven commodity with a winning record brought in

    2/ We need to address the misbalance with the offence in terms of salary cap.. One of these salary cap hogs need to go or restructure and funds transferred to defence..
    Bruce - the way he is playing it is unlikely that we will a/ trade him or b/ restructure his package… I think he has 3-4 years left in him
    Faulk - faulk will need to restructure or we will have to let him go
    Pace - no matter what happens, any cap space saved should be pumped back into the OL
    Holt - he is young, he is worth 1000yds/season, but he is small, cannot take a hit and misses clutch passes… I say we trade him… and draft WR in 2nd round

    3/ We need to address the secondary. I think Arch and Aeneas deserve minimum another year though we should find ourselves a good pass coverage SS.
    Fischer looks like a solid #2 CB.. But where is our shut down ? We cannot afford to find him in the FA market so afraid its draft.. #1 pick CB.. Groce and Butler are good nickel and backups

    4/ LB's.. Polley is useless and will go.. Thomas has no spirit (wimp) but adequate backup.. Pisa is a pro bowler waiting for a leader to get him there..Chillar has potential but like Pisa, needs a leader. Faulk will make a good backup.. So MLB is clearly our requirement.. Where do we get him ? Forget the draft, tried that and failed besides we need a leader and we will not find that in a rookie.. So Its free agency… but again, we need to make cap room (see Holt)

    5/ DL.. I feel pretty comfortable with the line this year.. There is a lack of experience there but will only get better .. No change unless Little ends up behind bars

    I guess the big problem with the above scenario is that with all these changes we may not have enough left over to address the OL.. Although we could draft OL in the 3rd round and then restructure Marshall and sign Pace - might be enough to bring in a top notch RT.

    Any thoughts ?


  2. #2
    txramsfan's Avatar
    txramsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Poplar Bluff, MO
    Age
    50
    Posts
    7,266
    Rep Power
    64

    Re: Getting our hopeless defence back on track

    Pace needs to get signed to a long term deal or we may just have to bite the bullet and let him go. With Jackson in the backfield, Faulk has to restructure or the nasty "business" part of the NFL is going to show up at Rams Park with Management across the table from Faulk's people.

    Then, we get down to business. I agree that the D line is coming around so don't really tinker to much with that. However, the Rams better get another slobberknocker linebacker to go with Pisa.

  3. #3
    elAcky Guest

    Re: Getting our hopeless defence back on track

    and the point is that need might outweigh the need to keep one of our "galacticos"

  4. #4
    ZigZagRam's Avatar
    ZigZagRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    St. Louis
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,700
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Getting our hopeless defence back on track

    Holt - he is young, he is worth 1000yds/season, but he is small, cannot take a hit and misses clutch passes… I say we trade him… and draft WR in 2nd round
    That's just stupid. He also gets how many TD's compared to Bruce? He's the deep ball threat on this team. Can't take a hit? How does what Holt does differ from what Bruce does after he catches a ball?

    Too small, he's almost exactly the same size as Bruce. Bottom line, Holt made a run for MVP last season and even challenged Jerry Rice's receiving record last season. Trading him would be lunacy. Holt is the future.

  5. #5
    RAMarkable is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Age
    58
    Posts
    2,070
    Rep Power
    40

    Re: Getting our hopeless defence back on track

    Quote Originally Posted by ZigZagRam
    That's just stupid. He also gets how many TD's compared to Bruce? He's the deep ball threat on this team. Can't take a hit? How does what Holt does differ from what Bruce does after he catches a ball?

    Too small, he's almost exactly the same size as Bruce. Bottom line, Holt made a run for MVP last season and even challenged Jerry Rice's receiving record last season. Trading him would be lunacy. Holt is the future.
    I totally agree Ziggy. Holt is by far the best receiver on the Rams. I fail to see the logic in filling a hole by creating another one. elAcky needs to get his facts straight before submitting a suggestion like that.
    Last time I checked both Holt and Bruce were 6'0" and 190#. How can Holt be "too small" and Bruce not?

    WHAT SAY YE?

  6. #6
    tanus is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    535
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Getting our hopeless defence back on track

    what about Ed Hartwell from the Ravens to play MLB?

  7. #7
    ZigZagRam's Avatar
    ZigZagRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    St. Louis
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,700
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Getting our hopeless defence back on track

    Not for Holt, but I definitely see Hartwell as an option because he will be a free agent next year since the Ravens have basically said they won't be signing him. If we can sign pace, Hartwell's a definite possibility. If not we might have to look into the draft at either Lance Mitchell, Barrett Ruud, or that fella from Iowa whose name escapes me, in the second round.

    I'd still rather have the veteran experience.

  8. #8
    elAcky Guest

    Re: Getting our hopeless defence back on track

    not going to bite on your comments... the problem with some of you is that you can only see the now and not the tomorrow.. the now is that we have a decent but not great offense and our defense is in tatters... yes, leave things as they are... GREAT IDEA !!

    My personal opinion is that i'd like to see a bigger receiver brought into this team (all undersized) as well as a decent TE... convinced that a) this will take Bulger to the next level and b) Holt will not be missed as McDonald is developing as our new deep ball threat and the load will be distributed amongst the rest (for the better).

    I challenge you to come up with solutions not just trash others opinions

  9. #9
    txramsfan's Avatar
    txramsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Poplar Bluff, MO
    Age
    50
    Posts
    7,266
    Rep Power
    64

    Re: Getting our hopeless defence back on track

    I have to agree with elAcky somewhat here. If you don't want to dump one other offensive player that is taking up huge salary cap space, don't complain about the defense. If that's the case, then this offense has failed miserably this year. Just as bad if not worse than the defense.

  10. #10
    ZigZagRam's Avatar
    ZigZagRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    St. Louis
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,700
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Getting our hopeless defence back on track

    Yes but by dumping arguably the best player on this offense is just silly. If you're gonna dump anybody because of salary, it'd have to be Faulk. Also have you not heard of cap penalties? if we trade Holt we'll have even more dead money next season. Use your heads.

  11. #11
    txramsfan's Avatar
    txramsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Poplar Bluff, MO
    Age
    50
    Posts
    7,266
    Rep Power
    64

    Re: Getting our hopeless defence back on track

    Not saying not to use our heads, but as long as the offense dictates almost a 2 for 1 salary cap dollar, don't blame the defense for the Rams problems.

  12. #12
    viper's Avatar
    viper is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,671
    Rep Power
    25

    Re: Getting our hopeless defence back on track

    Again, with all due respect to our other quality players, I would keep Bulger, Holt and probably Stephen Jackson. Anyone else would be a possibility to free up cap space.

  13. #13
    sbramfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    los angeles
    Age
    42
    Posts
    894
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Getting our hopeless defence back on track

    Another reason why you would not trade Holt is the Chemistry. It's really under-rated. You can't just bring in guys who can play and expect them to gel. (see redskins for a few years there).

    Marc is on the same page as these guys, and although I agree the future for receivers is Fitzgerald/T.O./Rogers/Moss, etc... there are still teams like the Pats who have chemistry and teamwork without those prototype guys.

    True, it would be nice to have someone on this team that is dominant, but partly that's what makes it a TEAM. If T.O. goes down in Phily, they're done. See the Vikings record without Moss. They way the Rams and Pats play, you can bring guys off the bench to fill in, and if you had a monster, you wouldn't have the balance if he goes out.

    Our D'line is young, so we'll have to gamble on them. The O'line may have to be patchwork next year with some 1 year vets filling in the holes. Got to have a dominant MLB. It would make the whole D look better.

  14. #14
    sbramfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    los angeles
    Age
    42
    Posts
    894
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Getting our hopeless defence back on track

    Since it seems to be the trend to reply to yourself (or your alter-ego, etc..) I have a question:

    Would I be smoking crack to suggest that our defense might be able to play a 3-4?

    We have smaller, quick guys left over from Lovie Smith, and we have a few "tweeners" like Little and Hargrove who might fit the LB role and blitz from there through the gaps. Plus we have a safety in Arch who could also come up as one of the 4 LB's in a passing down.

  15. #15
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,296
    Rep Power
    142

    Re: Getting our hopeless defence back on track

    Quote Originally Posted by sbramfan
    Since it seems to be the trend to reply to yourself (or your alter-ego, etc..) I have a question:

    Would I be smoking crack to suggest that our defense might be able to play a 3-4?

    We have smaller, quick guys left over from Lovie Smith, and we have a few "tweeners" like Little and Hargrove who might fit the LB role and blitz from there through the gaps. Plus we have a safety in Arch who could also come up as one of the 4 LB's in a passing down.
    Funny you ask, SB. I've often wondered about moving Little to an ILB and put D-Lew at DE for running downs and Hargrove in at DE for passing downs. I don't know, but it may be interesting to at least think about.
    "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

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Quote Sheet - Wednesday
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: -09-28-2006, 11:00 PM
  2. Team Postion Rankings
    By RamsFan16 in forum NFL TALK
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: -06-07-2006, 09:07 AM
  3. Vitt comments and others
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: -11-08-2005, 02:53 PM
  4. 2004 potential running back busts
    By evil disco man in forum FANTASY
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: -07-07-2004, 01:57 AM
  5. Replies: 48
    Last Post: -07-01-2004, 09:49 PM

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
  •