Play calling

[txramsfan]

Problem with that is the rassnfrassn Patsies get the whiners pick this year.

Anyway, it's tough to execute plays when the O line gives about as much time as it takes to wink. When you don't block, no play calling will work.

[rams2061]

He has not impressed me at all since becoming HC. That game yesterday against the ***** was just so boring to watch.

[r8rh8rmike]

Anyway, it's tough to execute plays when the O line gives about as much time as it takes to wink. When you don't block, no play calling will work.

Ding, Ding, Ding!! Exactly! Play calling is a function of what the players on the field are able to execute. Why is this so hard for people to understand?? When the OL breaks down, the offense breaks down and the playcalling, ANY PLAYCALLING becomes ineffective.

He has not impressed me at all since becoming HC. That game yesterday against the ***** was just so boring to watch.

Frustrating maybe, but hardly boring. I was on the edge of my seat the entire second half, living and dying with virtually every play.

[Rambos]

If you thought we had fixed the O-line after looking somewhat decent in the Saints game. Sorry but the Saint had lost some starters on their D-line and had no pass rush. We have no O-line period. We can't run with it or pass behind it.

At this point I will take a win anyway I can, it's not going to look pretty.

[Nick]

Anyway, it's tough to execute plays when the O line gives about as much time as it takes to wink. When you don't block, no play calling will work.

Ding, Ding, Ding!! Exactly! Play calling is a function of what the players on the field are able to execute. Why is this so hard for people to understand?? When the OL breaks down, the offense breaks down and the playcalling, ANY PLAYCALLING becomes ineffective.

This basically sums it all up, IMO. The combined 91 years of wisdom between these two grizzled veteran minds has it laid out perfectly - when you're offensive line cannot block anyone in either the run or pass game, then you're not going to find many answers in the playcalling. There isn't some magic playbook that doesn't require the guys up front to do their jobs in order for the contents to work efficiently and consistently.

[moloch41]

I thought a couple of those sacks yesterday were coverage sacks. He had time, but eventually blocking will break down. And if you're getting killed with the blitz, it's the OC's job to call plays which counter it. On the first drive, they moved the ball methodically, but once the Whiners made an adjustment, we couldn't seem to move the ball.

[r8rh8rmike]

I thought a couple of those sacks yesterday were coverage sacks. He had time, but eventually blocking will break down. And if you're getting killed with the blitz, it's the OC's job to call plays which counter it. On the first drive, they moved the ball methodically, but once the Whiners made an adjustment, we couldn't seem to move the ball.

You're absolutely right. They made adjustments and we did not have the personnel up front to counter those adjustments. Some of the sacks were indeed coverage sacks, but that was the rare exception and for the most part, Bulger was under siege most of the game. It's a horrible situation to be in, but it's where we are. As Nick pointed out, when the OL completely breaks down, there is no magic playbook to make up for it. No getting around that fact.

[moloch41]

You're absolutely right. They made adjustments and we did not have the personnel up front to counter those adjustments. Some of the sacks were indeed coverage sacks, but that was the rare exception and for the most part, Bulger was under siege most of the game. It's a horrible situation to be in, but it's where we are. As Nick pointed out, when the OL completely breaks down, there is no magic playbook to make up for it. No getting around that fact.

I think Linehan made a great adjustment last week by sending McMichael out in routes instead of leaving him in to block. I think having him out as a hot read is almost as effective as running a draw. If you keep hurting them every time they blitz, they will stop doing it. I don't think Linehan ran a single play meant to slow down the blitz. As a matter of fact, a couple of the running plays ran right into the mouth of it and that's when Jackson lost yards. Does our line suck? Sure, but Linehan has to come up with better plays to compensate for it and I think as we've found out all year- simplifying your playbook down to a high school playbook just isn't working for us.

[Nick]

I think Linehan made a great adjustment last week by sending McMichael out in routes instead of leaving him in to block. I think having him out as a hot read is almost as effective as running a draw.

The Rams' ability to use McMichael in the passing game is directly tied to how well the offensive line is protecting the quarterback. When the line is playing well or when the opposing team is having problems generating a pass rush with their front four (which seemed to be the case for a New Orleans team missing Brian Young and Charles Grant), then it frees up your 'back or tight end to be used vertically. But when your line is struggling to protect your passer, you're forced to keep those players back to help protect.

I don't think Linehan ran a single play meant to slow down the blitz.

Despite all the hatred it gets, that's exactly what the quick hit to the WR on the line of scrimmage is meant to do. Counter a strong pass rush by challenging the perimeter. I believe we saw one yesterday to Bruce that went for five yards. We also saw a screen to Jackson called that would have worked against the blitz, but the ball was batted down. I seem to remember at least one slant as well. IMO it's inaccurate to say there weren't any plays called to counter the pressure we saw, but I guess I'd have to go back and watch the video to be completely sure.

Does our line suck? Sure, but Linehan has to come up with better plays to compensate for it and I think as we've found out all year- simplifying your playbook down to a high school playbook just isn't working for us.

And complicating your playbook isn't going to help when you're starting guys along the line who have been on this team a month or less. I would speculate that if we're simplifying the playbook right now, it's to help out the new guys we're pulling off the street to play more than anything else.

[RealRam]

I would speculate that if we're simplifying the playbook right now, it's to help out the new guys we're pulling off the street to play more than anything else. -- Nick

And that of course makes all the sense in the world to me. :r

One of the fundamental goals of an effective OL is to play together with understanding, synchronization, and cohesiveness. That takes time and training, starting all the way back to preseason.

Sure, injuries come up and the offense must "improvise and adapt; overcome" as we've mentioned in the past. But with the rate and the amount of dismantling and unraveling that we've suffered, I for one am amazed that we haven't been buried altogether -- or that Bulger can still breathe. Not to mention having achieved two humble victories. I'm amazed that Barron hasn't been fined by the NFL for exceeding maximum amount allowed of false starts, so to speak...


And so it makes sense to me that this patched up, makeshift group of offensive linemen that are being pulled off the street, as Nick said, is best suited to go vanilla, to go KISS -- 'keep it simple, safe'. Thus the rest of the offense must revolve around this form and function in order to survive.

That is, after all, the mode that we've been in for several weeks now. :bash:


PS: It's a wonder the Rams ran that pass option play with Jax last week Vs. Aints, and made it work, and scored a TD with it! I just don't think we have the luxury of being that innovative too often the way we stand, wounded and all.

[moloch41]

The Rams' ability to use McMichael in the passing game is directly tied to how well the offensive line is protecting the quarterback. When the line is playing well or when the opposing team is having problems generating a pass rush with their front four (which seemed to be the case for a New Orleans team missing Brian Young and Charles Grant), then it frees up your 'back or tight end to be used vertically. But when your line is struggling to protect your passer, you're forced to keep those players back to help protect.

2 games against the Whiners- McMichael was left in primarily to block- we gave up 12 sacks and god knows how many QB pressures and knockdowns- I would say his plan has not been effective.

IMO it's inaccurate to say there weren't any plays called to counter the pressure we saw, but I guess I'd have to go back and watch the video to be completely sure.

Okay, then he "hardly" ran any plays to counter the blitz. I would say 3 plays in the face of a relentless blitzing scheme qualifies as "hardly".

And complicating your playbook isn't going to help when you're starting guys along the line who have been on this team a month or less. I would speculate that if we're simplifying the playbook right now, it's to help out the new guys we're pulling off the street to play more than anything else.

I would say that if you think about 12 sacks in 2 games- simplicity isn't exactly helping either...

[r8rh8rmike]

Despite all the hatred it gets, that's exactly what the quick hit to the WR on the line of scrimmage is meant to do. Counter a strong pass rush by challenging the perimeter. I believe we saw one yesterday to Bruce that went for five yards. We also saw a screen to Jackson called that would have worked against the blitz, but the ball was batted down. I seem to remember at least one slant as well. IMO it's inaccurate to say there weren't any plays called to counter the pressure we saw, but I guess I'd have to go back and watch the video to be completely sure.

Well. I watched the video and to say nothing was done to counter the blitz is a misconception IMO. In addition to keeping backs and TE's in to block, there were numerous draws and screens run and set up to both Jackson and Leonard, there were numerous quick slants to the recievers, there were numerous counter plays and misdirection reverses, there were a few swing passes to the backs, there was play action, a flea flicker, an end around to Hall and Bulger was even rolled out of the pocket on one occasion. Linehan tried everything he could from what I saw.

[Nick]

2 games against the Whiners- McMichael was left in primarily to block- we gave up 12 sacks and god knows how many QB pressures and knockdowns- I would say his plan has not been effective.

And I'm not convinced that removing a blocker from the equation would be any more effective either.

Okay, then he "hardly" ran any plays to counter the blitz. I would say 3 plays in the face of a relentless blitzing scheme qualifies as "hardly".

Take a look at the post Mike made, he summed it up nicely. Just because the Rams got to Bulger quite a bit doesn't mean nothing was being done to try and counter it.

I would say that if you think about 12 sacks in 2 games- simplicity isn't exactly helping either...

Which is the point many of us have been making - it's a very tough situation to succeed in no matter what is done. You do what you can to try and maximize success, and when you're adding new linemen every month and have problems protecting your QB, then keeping an extra guy back to pass protect while simplifying the playbook for your newcomers makes a lot of sense to me.

[jquarando]

txramsfan got it right. If you cant block you cant run plays. If a coach is so great that he can compensate for a crummy oline why even have the oline out their in the first place?

[laram0]

He has not impressed me at all since becoming HC. That game yesterday against the ***** was just so boring to watch.

As long as we walk away with a "W" Linehan can bore me to death.