Same old worries for me

[r8rh8rmike]

Mok, let's give the positives from last night a chance to be substantiated before we dismiss them as meaningless. Just like the doubts about Faulk, your doubts about Martz and the team may be a little premature. Keep the faith dude.

[viper]

Ya know Moklerman, I personally enjoy and appreciate your posts. You have conviction in your statements and you bring alot to the table. You provide a perspective for all of us to consider. I don't think anyone can question your passion for this team. For that I salute you.

I believe this "Board" is for all to do the same. I for one find this team to be a paradox. One week I'm sure of one thing and the next week I'm I'm not so sure about that position anymore.
You may want consider, however, that you may be your own worst enemy. Within the passion that you display, it sometimes comes across, to those of us still trying to figure this team out, as defensive and attacking yourself.

Now, I understand that you are often provoked by a fellow "Warrior in Blue."

But, consider this:

1) He is entitled to his opinion...and

2) His position on this "Board" may be to elicit responses from the clan to keep it juicy (i.e., "As the Stomach Churns," perhaps an upcoming soap opera). I believe Dez eluded to this a week or so ago.

I also believe that the "Man in Blue" brings great value to this "Board," and that it wouldn't be the same without him. As a third party observer, his responses sometimes make it seem like i'm reading "Doonesbury" 10 times a day. I enjoy that very much also. (I do really like his avatar as well, looking over the shoulder like that. It looks like he just turned to speak to the subject matter...I digress).

IMO, keep doing what you're doing, it is appreciated. Understand that maybe you are being baited or maybe the "Man in Blue" doesn't agree and he is entitled to his opinion. But, you don't have to defend yourself personally. If the "Man in Blue" goes there, you can take the high road and speak your opinion and observations and let the clan members decipher and speak their piece. No one doubts your passion for the team. You are a brother clan member and I'm sure I don't speak for myself.

Now together, let us prepare to defeat the "Raptors"!

Go Rams!!!

[r8rh8rmike]

This place is definitely better with you around Mok. Your posts are thought provoking, intelligent and interesting.

[moklerman]

Mok, let's give the positives from last night a chance to be substantiated before we dismiss them as meaningless.

It may a poor choice of words on your part but I never said what happened last night was meaningless. I'm just skeptical and it's based on past performance and situations.

[r8rh8rmike]

Fair enough.

[AvengerRam]

Nice post, Viper.

Your check's in the mail.

[RealRam]

Moklerman, the moral, if you will, of your original post here is very good and legit; i.e., no need for the Rams -- or us -- to get all excited over last night's victory Vs. Whiners. There's certainly much to accomplish and to prove! And I think we all agree to a reasonable extent.

Nonetheless, I feel G-R-E-A-T about the clear improvements established in yesterday's game, hopefully for the rest of the season.

It's not beating the Whiners that has everybody excited, it's little things that we did during the game that gives us a positive look into the future. --ZigZagRam

You're right on too, Zig!

On the other hand. I categorically reject the idea of Coach Martz making any adjustments whatsover to his game plans based on the comments of the "media". That is simply not feasible in our professional approach to the responsibilities of leadership (regardless of which NFL team).



PS: Mokler, by the way, really like your Rams pictorial.

[txramsfan]

I'm skeptical also. To me, that looked like winning a preseason game. Martz stayed vanilla and allowed the O line and Faulk to gain confidence going into what turns out to be a big game, 5 games into the season. I also think we are starting to get healthier on both sides of the ball. Curtis looked fine, the O line didn't have a knick, the LB's looked somewhat healthy, and we found out Arch has been playing with a bad back so Coady saw lots of action.

I'm not so sure that Martz was coaching or has ever coached to the media, but he saw something in the whiners armor that he wanted to manipulate. Maybe being the "greatest O coordinator" has something more to do with offense and not just passing.

Next week is a key game. It would hurt to go down three games so early in the season. The Rams accomplished what they wanted, to get a W over an archrival and stay healthy. Now, next week at Seattle is huge. Forget about this one already and start preparing for Seattle.

[adarian_too]

You can't take a win for granted in the NFL ...

You can when the opposing coach is such a wuss that he punts instead of goes for a FG on the opening drive. Erickson folded like a cheap suit then and there. Any opponent should have run roughshod over the, aptly called, Whiners at this point. Nothing got proven after that except that Erickson should join the ranks of the unemployed.

[coy bacon]

I don't mind if Martz changes his game plan based upon media criticism. There was a chorus of criticism, from all venues, that criticized Martz for the lack of running. Maybe he realized they were correct and he changed accordingly.

If he didn't change, and passed a bazillion times, what would you say? You'd say he was a dummy for passing so much. So, he balances the attack and you say, "He's got no mind of his own!"

Mok, I think you are being too harsh in your criticisms of Martz. Maybe he is the John Kerry of football coaches, but we should allow him the freedom to correct his mistakes. I feel he should have got it right from the start against the Saints and he was boneheaded for passing against a weak run defense team, but at least he didn't repeat the mistakes.

And, there are a lot of smart analysts out there, working in the media, who do make intelligent comments, and those comments should be evaluated. So listening to the media is not by default a bad thing, (unless it is Dan Rather speaking).

[Nick]

In one of the recent post-game articles posted on this forum, Martz sounds as if his playcalling was in direct response to what he was seeing on the field.

From said article:

"We've always been a little pragmatic about things in the last six years,"
coach Mike Martz said. "That's kind of how we approach things. You're standing
there on the sidelines, you look at it, they're playing a real soft Cover 2."

The ***** were playing their safeties deep, basically inviting the Rams to run
the football. Martz accepted the invitation.

"You start handing the ball off, and start rolling pretty good," Martz said.

So you keep handing it off.

"And that's what kind of happened," Martz said. "The offensive line took it
upon themselves to make things happen, and they certainly did. ... It's just
like in the passing game. If you're hitting them, you keep going. You do
whatever it takes to win."

Whether or not some people buy into that is up to them, but it sounds as if the frequently-criticized offensive mind saw what the defense was giving him and adjusted his gameplan accordingly to take advantage of it. If that's the case, I'm not sure one can make the accusation that this was in response to media criticism, since it instead seems to have been in response to the ***** themselves.

[HUbison]

Whether or not some people buy into that is up to them, but it sounds as if the frequently-criticized offensive mind saw what the defense was giving him and adjusted his gameplan accordingly to take advantage of it. If that's the case, I'm not sure one can make the accusation that this was in response to media criticism, since it instead seems to have been in response to the ***** themselves.

Nick, I agree with your summation of Martz' thought process, but it begs the question: When offered the same soft defense in the Saints game, why didn't he adjust then?

Honestly, I don't care why he did it. I'm just glad he did. However, from the files of "What makes Mike tick?", I am curious as to why he sticks with the pass, come hell or high water, against the Saints, but switches to the ground game to open the niners game.

[Nick]

Nick, I agree with your summation of Martz' thought process, but it begs the question: When offered the same soft defense in the Saints game, why didn't he adjust then?

Honestly, I don't care why he did it. I'm just glad he did. However, from the files of "What makes Mike tick?", I am curious as to why he sticks with the pass, come hell or high water, against the Saints, but switches to the ground game to open the niners game.

Perhaps in the Saints game, the Saints didn't back off and immediately drop into coverage until the Rams were behind and were already needing to gain yards through the air. As you pointed out, their second half average was something like 3.3 ypc. They weren't exactly succeeding on the ground. That's just my guess though.

As for why he started off with an aerial attack against the Saints, maybe it was because given their defense's performance up to that game, he expected New Orleans to concentrate on fixing their run defense in preparation for the game. Again, let's not forget that at the time, their pass defense wasn't that great either.

[moklerman]

I'm very skeptical that the media pressure had nothing to do with what Martz did against SF. Add to that, Bulger threw the ball the less than he has in the past 8 games. His third lowest total ever as a matter of fact. It's possible that it's coincidence but it's just as possible that it isn't when you look at the timing and events that led up to the game.

Is it good or bad? I don't know that either. A coach that is so aware of the media doesn't seem like a good idea to me, though. I think it's a popular opinion that a coach should NOT care about the media and just coach how he thinks is best. The information we have seems to at least present the possibility that Martz is concerned with what the media thinks about him. To me, that would be a bad thing.

I still predict (not hope) that Bulger will throw the ball at least 45 times against Seattle this week. All of the balance and hope that goes along with it being thrown right out the window. I'm not convinced in the least that Martz has changed his spots.

PS: Mokler, by the way, really like your Rams pictorial.

Thanks. I actually had to put some time into that little project. It's hard finding pictures of some of those guys. A color shot of Waterfield was ultimately elusive.

As you pointed out, their second half average was something like 3.3 ypc. They weren't exactly succeeding on the ground. That's just my guess though.

It would be interesting to find out what goes through the Mad One's mind wouldn't it? I don't think he was considering the ypc at all against NO. I happen to think that he get's hell bent on something working and he's not going to give up on it. Kind of a square peg in a round hole type of mentality. It would be nice to see him improve upon his in-game adjustments and philosophy in general as far as a LITTLE balance goes but I think that's too much to ask of someone in his position.

[Nick]

Media pressure may play a part. I don't think anyone can say for sure either way. But I think the ***** defense played more of a role because they allowed the Rams to run all over them.

The Rams were able to win battles in the trenches and create holes, and Marshall Faulk and our other runners were able to gain good ground. 4.8 ypc against the *****, and it started out well too.

I think had Martz pounded the ball despite not getting anything on the ground, then you could say he was trying to play to media criticism. But the fact that right out of the gate, Faulk gains 24 yards on three carries, that's going to inspire a coach to continue with things on the ground. However, on the flip side, the Rams' first drive seemed to differ a good bit from what we saw against New Orleans. But again, whether that was based on media criticism or what Martz actually saw the ***** doing, that's up for debate.

And Mok, that is a very nice banner. Very nice work!