Travis Fisher

[STLRAMSFAN]

Fisher does have 0 INTs this year and last. He has 0 INTs in his last 15 starts. He has 1 INT in his last 25 games started covering the end of 2003 and all of 2004, 2005, and 2006 seasons. At this rate he is a bonafide Hall of Famer. Maybe if they only threw at him a little more he might have more INTs.

I bet Fisher would be good with horse shoes and hand grenades.

[Will51]

over the past two years i have made so much money off of travis fisher, every time the ball is in the air i bet one of my friends the reciever will come down with it, and 99.9 % of the time i am right travis fisher =$$$$$$

[Nick]

but really, can you give specifics examples to refute it categorically?

Well for the record I've never tried to make the case that Fisher categorically looks back at the ball. My opinion is that he does on occasion and doesn't on other occasions, and I think use of the strategy depends on your body position and how easy it is to make that kind of turn. I should also note that I was critical of him on the PI call for making contact without making an effort to try and play the ball. Looking back at my responses, what I've refuted are claims that he NEVER looks back at the ball. And yes, if you'd like me to, I can provide some examples of him doing that. I've already provided one - the deflection in the Green Bay game.

In general terms, I do recall plays where he's in zone coverage looking back at the QB, and I would contend that when he's backed up off the line of scrimmage in loose coverage he has (or should have) his eyes on the quarterback as well as the receiver since both are in front of him in his line of sight. That being said, when he turns his back to the QB to run with a receiver in man coverage down field, I really don't expect him to look back simply because his focus needs to be on staying with his man. He can judge if the ball is coming by watching the receiver and looking for cues from him.

most of us give opinions of players or coaches based on less than reliable cumulative memories and so when nick asks for evidence to prove or dissprove what is in fact an opinion it would seem pointless since it's painfully obvious that his opinion of the facts differ in the first place.

I'm not sure I follow you. If I say I don't think a person is good at something, I have to base that opinion on something, correct? I just don't pick someone at random and determine based on nothing that he's good or bad.

Okay, so I'm simply asking for that which such an opinion is based on so we can go back and take a closer look. If people are basing their opinions on less than reliable cumulative memories, then I would suggest that they perhaps not present such an opinion with the kind of certainty that we've seen in criticisms of Fisher and perhaps also be open-minded to changing those opinions when reliable accounts of plays are brought up that counter the opinion.

I mean, we're now on page five of this thread and how many additional examples have we accumulated outside of the two that AlphaRam brought up earlier? Not very many, I don't think. If anything I've probably been posting more specific examples of poor play by Fisher than anyone, and for some reason I'm getting criticized for not acknowledging his faults in the process!

I understand that people don't all have access to additional resources, but if a person thinks the guy's been playing poorly, it's based on something. I don't think I'm asking a heck of a lot when challenging people to recall those plays.

i think fisher is a solid fringe-level CB who rarely makes a mistake and is disciplined enough and fast enough to avoid giving up the long balls over his head...but is not instinctive enough nor has the ball skills to make game changing plays on a consistent game to game basis like the better ones in this league.

Would you believe, for the most part, I agree with this assessment of Fisher being a solid - not great but not horrible - corner? Maybe some believe that I'm trying to argue Fisher into the Hall of Fame or Pro Bowl, but that's not the case at all. I'm simply trying to show that he's not playing at the largely poor level he's widely criticized of playing at.

Posters should recall the position I took in the spring regarding our secondary and its relation to our draft strategy - I was in favor of drafting players like Michael Huff or Tye Hill because I viewed our secondary as having a number of solid players but no true playmakers or game changers. I would suggest Fisher falls into the realm of being a solid player.

nick makes a good point in his first post regarding the importance of the front line providing a pass rush, but this is less irrelevant, imo, in regards to fisher since he is one of the fastest players on the team and does play off the line well.

I generally disagree with this. Even the fastest of cornerbacks are going to get beat if the quarterback has all day to sit back and pick his spots, especially when a defense takes men out of coverage and blitzes them but does not get to the quarterback. Remember, the receiver knows where the ball is going and the corner does not. The corner is in chase mode, and even speed can get beat by a precise cut or turn and a well timed pass. Regardless of DB speed, the pass rush is an equally important part of the equation of pass defense, IMO.

As promissed, I refuse to discuss Travis Fisher w/you based on the above evidence but frankly, I think that even our own CB would be more flexible to admit his faults on the field than you, facts and all.

If you're implying that I've not been acknowledging Fisher's poor play or faults in this thread, then you haven't been reading my responses at all.

Again, I agreed with Alpha about the pass interference call and how Fisher needed to do a better job of looking back if he was going to get tangled up with Branch. This is the second time I've specifically reminded you about this yet you continue to look over it.

Furthermore, I acknowledged the legitimacy of Utter's complaint about Fisher breaking on balls in the air and also brought up criticisms I myself had about his reaction time. I responded to HUb's comment on the Detroit game by bringing up both positive AND negative plays made by Fisher, in fact I believe I specifically commented on three negative plays, and categorized his game performance as simply being okay or solid because he had some bad plays to go along with some good ones.

To sit here and imply I've not been flexible in admitting when Fisher has made mistakes or has faults is factually inaccurate and a complete misrepresentation of what I've presented in this thread. I've now not only summarized the instances in which I've discussed Fisher's mistakes and faults, but I've provided links to the individual posts in which they occur. That should hopefully shut the door on such implications.

WOW! I did not expect the discussion that has occurred in this thread. Yesterday was my first day back after serving 30 days away from the board to honor a bet with a Whiners fan when we lost the game to them.

You sure have a heck of a way fo making a comeback then!

2. Regarding the examples that I pointed out from the second half of NFL Replay from last night, Fisher never scoped the ball at any point in his defense of the receiver. Additionally, he got called for pass interference on a ball that he could have turned around to intercept had he not been grabbing the receiver's arm.

And I've provided a rather length analysis of why he wouldn't look back at the ball on the touchdown play, so I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts on some of those points.

As for the pass interference call, I agree that Fisher could have intercepted that pass had he turned around and found it because the ball was underthrown. However it's because we know the ball was underthrown that we can conclude Fisher could have intercepted it. It's a bit of a hindsight argument. When you're man to man on a guy streaking down the field, taking your attention off that player to turn around and look for the ball is not a strategy I would suggest doing.

It's easy to sit here and say he could have made a play if he'd have done something different because we have a clear knowledge of how everything transpired, but if that pass is on the money like you have to assume it's going to be and Fisher turns back to try and find it, he likely gives up space to the receiver and takes himself out of the play. I draw that conclusion because I've seen other defensive backs on our team do just that when turning to look back for the ball, and if necessary I can provide examples of that.

Also I previously said that if he's going to get tangled up with Branch like that he needs to at least turn his head in some manner to make it appear as if he's playing the ball so as to not draw the flag. I don't think it's reasonable to ask him to turn completely around in that instance, but at least turn your head in some fashion.

Not looking for the ball is inexcusable.

Not looking for the ball in some instances is inexcusable, I agree. Not looking for the ball in ALL instances, I disgaree with, and have hopefully illustrated in previous posts which instances a cornerback may not specifically turn to look for the ball, especially when it involves more than a 90-degree head turn which basically removes any focus he may have on the receiver.

4. The incident that I cited where Fisher poked Steve Smith in the eye across the line of scrimmage in 2003 was what got me following Fisher's play. I do not know how the officials missed it, but my opinion is that Fisher would get called for more penalties if the officials watched him better.

I do not recall Fisher poking Steve Smith in the eye in 2003, so I'll defer to your account of events. As for whether or not Fisher would be called for more penalties if the officials watched him better, this kind of statement is applicable to just about every player on the field. If the officials watched the offensive line better, there would likely be more holding calls. If the official watched the receivers better, there would likely be more offensive pass interference calls. I'm not sure why Fisher needs to be singled out as saying he'd likely be flagged more if he was being watched closer.

I have no problem with Nick's challenge to support my opinion and I respect his point of view.

I appreciate that. Similarly, I have no problem with people criticizing Travis Fisher or any other Ram, but I would simply suggest that anyone willing to make a claim about something should be able to support that claim when asked.

I don't think asking someone to defend their opinion with details and specifics is at all a negative thing. If anything, that kind of detailed analysis should serve to improve the quality of the board as a whole, I would think, because it means we're taking a closer look at what our team is doing and drawing conclusions directly from the specific things we see on the field.

The defense has to be more free form than that. They are hunting down the ball and they have to be able to adapt to their situation more freely than the offense. I am sure the the CBs are given advice or even directions about where they should line up and how much cushion to give. I would think that it is the secondary coach, Willie Robinson who is barking those orders, not Haslett.

I am not trying to be difficult, but I think there is plenty of wiggle room on the defense to improvise as the players see fit.

I agree that the defense does need to be more flexible at times. A cornerback doesn't know where the ball is going, so the precise path he's going to take in man coverage on any specfic play is unknown to him. Just as the precise path Leonard Little is going to take to the quarterback is unknown, because it's going to depend on how he's blockeed. Does he speed around the edge or make a move toward the inside? That's a decision he makes as the play unfolds. So yes, there is some mystery and uncertainty in the responsibilities of the defense.

However, I would contend that where a player lines up on the field and how far or near he lines up to a man he's covering is not one of those decisions solely left up to him but is rather part of the scheme Haslett has instituted and is drilling into our players (and as you said is probably being handled primarily by Robinson the position coach), and it very likely depends on what part of the field they're on on any given play as well as the situation and specific defensive play called.

I just cannot buy into this idea that a defensive back is solely responsible for how near or far he is from his man on the line of scrimmage, nor have I seen a very compelling argument to convince me of such a claim. Furthermore for those that think it is the cornerback's responsibility, I have yet to hear the criticism of this nature made about our other DBs, who if you watch the tape are equally as guilty of lining up well off of receivers in certain situations. The vast majority of criticms is thrown Fisher's way, which is entirely unfair. It's because all of our guys do it that I believe you can't blame the player for it but rather need to look at it as a coaching issue.

[Fat Pang]

I think I've said almost as much as I want to on this topic. I'd like to point out however, amidst some of the very interesting technical points that have been raised, that no-one has yet said that Travis Fisher is an all-pro or anything near it.

All that those of us who think that the vilification of Fisher is simplistic have tried to point out is that Fisher's performance depends to an extent on the performance of the front four. To hold Fisher accountable in this fashion isn't helpful in my view because it tends to ignore other issues that we have to the extent that we become almost blind to them. Were Fisher to suffer an Ahmad Carroll and be released tomorrow I would wager that his replacement, whether Bartell or Hill, wouldn't be the cause of a leap up the defensive rankings.

We have to consider that in earning the starting job, Fisher proved something to the coaching staff above and beyond what either Bartell or Hill have offered. Nick's detailed breakdown of the game film and his corresponding judgement on it is probably closer to their judgement than those who feel Fisher to be the sole problem.

It's a sobering thought but perhaps Fisher is the best that we have at this current moment in time in the opinion of the coaching staff and that is why he's starting every week. The same Jim Haslett who was earning rave reviews for his turnaround of our once pathetic defensive unit is the same Jim Haslett who starts him every week.

The overall talent of our defensive group does not allow us to a Denny Green and scapegoat people every week.

[rampete]

... when he turns his back to the QB to run with a receiver in man coverage down field, I really don't expect him to look back simply because his focus needs to be on staying with his man. He can judge if the ball is coming by watching the receiver and looking for cues from him.

to me, that's what separates the playmakers from the average DBs in this league...some, but not many, DBs have that uncanny ability to sense the ball coming their way and more importantly have the physical ability to turn their hips without breaking rhythm to locate the ball in the downward trajectory...it doesn't surprise me that fisher has only 7 int.s and 22 breakups in 53 career games...but like you mentioned, he isn't so bad as to blow assignments often and get beat for TDs regularly...

I'm not sure I follow you. If I say I don't think a person is good at something, I have to base that opinion on something, correct? I just don't pick someone at random and determine based on nothing that he's good or bad.

Okay, so I'm simply asking for that which such an opinion is based on so we can go back and take a closer look. If people are basing their opinions on less than reliable cumulative memories, then I would suggest that they perhaps not present such an opinion with the kind of certainty that we've seen in criticisms of Fisher and perhaps also be open-minded to changing those opinions when reliable accounts of plays are brought up that counter the opinion.

I mean, we're now on page five of this thread and how many additional examples have we accumulated outside of the two that AlphaRam brought up earlier? Not very many, I don't think. If anything I've probably been posting more specific examples of poor play by Fisher than anyone, and for some reason I'm getting criticized for not acknowledging his faults in the process!

I understand that people don't all have access to additional resources, but if a person thinks the guy's been playing poorly, it's based on something. I don't think I'm asking a heck of a lot when challenging people to recall those plays.

challenging others to recall specifics within a game is not really a necessity when posters are venting their emotions based on cumulative and highly selective memories of a bad event...it serves little purpose for a discourse in discussions when the primary objective is emotional venting...now, if discrepancies between facts are raised, then it's more than relevant to issue requests for factual evidences to support or refute their claims as fact...

what may've been more appropriate to raise as a discussion,imo, is the definition of what consitutes a "bad" corner...once an agreed-upon definition has been established then it may provide more insight into what we are really trying to express...

I generally disagree with this. Even the fastest of cornerbacks are going to get beat if the quarterback has all day to sit back and pick his spots, especially when a defense takes men out of coverage and blitzes them but does not get to the quarterback. Remember, the receiver knows where the ball is going and the corner does not. The corner is in chase mode, and even speed can get beat by a precise cut or turn and a well timed pass. Regardless of DB speed, the pass rush is an equally important part of the equation of pass defense, IMO.

i agree with you that even the fastest players get beat deep at times and that given time anyone can be beat...i believe i misread one of your earlier posts about fisher's speed and his propensity to get beat deep...

[AlphaRam]

I will be offering the Cliff Notes booklet for the precis of this thread. Send a damp, self-possessed envelope to...never mind, you cheapskates won't buy it, anyway.

[ramsbruce]

I can't believe that the offense and the defense have the same philosophy. WRs line up in exact positions and run precise routes so that the QB will know where they will be on the field.

The defense has to be more free form than that. They are hunting down the ball and they have to be able to adapt to their situation more freely than the offense. I am sure the the CBs are given advice or even directions about where they should line up and how much cushion to give. I would think that it is the secondary coach, Willie Robinson who is barking those orders, not Haslett.

I am not trying to be difficult, but I think there is plenty of wiggle room on the defense to improvise as the players see fit.

Haslett is calling the plays, with advice from his coaches, but he is the decision maker and ultimately makes the call.

I'm not saying it's the exact same philosophy. What I'm saying is, the D gets the play and lines up. You seem to think Fisher lines up too far away. I've seen the other DBs line up far away from the WRs at times to, so to me that says it's the scheme and play called by Haslett. It's not just Fisher. I'm saying he's lining up where the play called puts him.

They freelance a bit, moreso after the play starts or if there is a shift in formation, but if Fisher was freelancing as much as people say he lines up too far from the WRs than Haslett would have a fit. If Fisher was lining up far off the WRs when Haslett wanted him up close, don't you think the coach would tell him, line up where I tell you and run the play, and if he kept doing it he would be on the bench.

[RamOfDenmark]

I've never felt that Fisher was a good corner, I'm not really sure if I would even call him adequate. That goes back to every year he's been with the Rams, I briefly gave him a chance through the first 4-5 games of this season to prove me wrong since the coaching staff talked enthusiastically about him during training camp, but he has only confirmed what I've always thought about him this year.

Regardless of whether he was playing injured or not (an excuse often brought up I think) - if you're too injured to play well, take yourself out of the lineup and heal before you come back. He does seem injure prone, never played a full season I believe (15 games in 2003 at the most) and he seems to get increasinly banged up as his career progresses.

He hardly ever gets any turnovers either: 7 int's in 53 games over his career, and only 1 interception in the last 3 seasons (2004, 2005, 2006). And only 2 forced fumbles in his career.

I don't think he does a good job of breaking up the pass either, that one pass against Green Bay where he deflects the ball appears in fact to be his only pass defensed this season in 6 games, and only 22 throughout his 5 year career.

If there's one redeeming thing I have to say about Fisher it would be that he does seem to fit the bend-don't-break mentality somewhat. He seems to give up a ton of plays underneath for 10, 12, 15 yards, but rarely many deeper passes. However I don't think he's a very good tackler either, so unless a safety or LB gets in there quickly it seems to me that Fisher's receiver usually picks up YAC minimizing the effectiveness of the bend-don't-break philosophy.

All in all I see a pedestrain corner that doesn't make any big plays and gives up lots of plays, and that's not exclusively based on this year, but rather his entire career. He's not a playmaker, but his fundamentals, covering and tackling aren't sound enough either IMHO, so I wouldn't call him solid. Mediocre perhaps.

As for our other CB's, I remain convinced that Butler is still a better option than Fisher, just like he's practically always been. Brown is better too. Hill is a toss-up I think, but I make no secret of the fact that I cut Hill (a rookie) considerably more slack than Fisher (5 year veteran) when it comes to mistakes, that's only fair IMHO. Bartell I'm really not sure, haven't seen him play corner enough to say if he's better than Fisher at this point, but I would be happy to roll the dice and let Bartell start a game or two to see what he's got, I can't believe he could be substantially worse than Fisher.

I would start Butler any day of the week, and I'm still surprised he doesn't seem to figure in our plans this year at all. Wonder if he is in the doghouse, I remember Steven Jackson talking in one interview (prior to the Green Bay game) like he was, and when both Brown and Fisher are out and he *still* doesn't play all that much you have to consider the possibility I think.

(On a small concrete note: didn't Fisher get flagged for 2 costly pass interferences against Seattle? Or was the 2nd one against someone else?)

[STLRAMSFAN]

Can anyone provide any stats that prove over the last three years that he is not a bad CB. Tackles dont count IMO because that can be deceptive for a corner seeing how if they deny the ball to their person they won't get the tackles. How about average # of attempts thrown at per INT. How about pass breakups per attempt. Any proof that he is not as bad as almost everyone says. Can anyone that thinks he is not a bad CB provide proof to the many that think he is bad. They have provided the stats as well as their opinions after watching him play since 2002.

Even if he were there stride for stride on every play that does no good if the guy catches it or its a bad throw and it hits him and he can't get the INT because he don't play the ball. If he wants to be stride for stride every play and not make the play he should be in the escort business.

If some people want everyone to prove that he is a bad CB before making their statements. Then they should lead by example and provide proof that he is not a bad CB before refuting others opinions.

1 INT over his last 25 games started and 0 this year. I am sorry but that is horrible for any CB let alone one that gets thrown at a lot.

[LaRamsFanLongTime]

This secondary as a whole has not been playing very well. They are not finding the ball in the air.You have to turn your head around and find the ball period. What I notice about Fisher is his boys seem to get open alot on crossing patterns . When we played Detroit Mike Furrey made him look like a fool a couple times. I just dont think he seems to be in the position to make the play very often. When he is in position he does not turn his head. Then again neither does Tye Hill, Corey Chavous, Atogwe, the whole Rams secondary. If you dont turn that head around you are gonna rack up penalties and plays against you. If you are in that secondary your job is to find that ball.

I dont know I still have a very positive outlook for this teams future this season but if they dont get some support from the secondary the games are gonna stay close. When a game is close we all know what could happen.

I do get what you are saying about the pass rush but cmon both those second half TD's should have been batted down. Especially the 56 yarder. All the Rams defenders had to do was turn their heads. Our secondary is ranked 21st it needs to improve and I dont care what players are in Fisher or Bartell they need to execute they are in the NFL getting paid alot of money.

Originally posted by Nick
... when he turns his back to the QB to run with a receiver in man coverage down field, I really don't expect him to look back simply because his focus needs to be on staying with his man. He can judge if the ball is coming by watching the receiver and looking for cues from him.

On that note lets take Branches second TD. When the receiver is in the end zone on a go route the ball is coming. If it is not then he is running straight out the end zone.Why would you not look for the ball when you know your man has a half step and is running out of field?

[UtterBlitz]

(On a small concrete note: didn't Fisher get flagged for 2 costly pass interferences against Seattle? Or was the 2nd one against someone else?)

Hill got flagged for the other one and it appeared to be a pretty bad call. The fans in the dome booed for oh let's say 5 minutes after that call.

[norcalramfan]

Travis Fisher is a huge hole in our defense. If you want to get big fantasy points, get the receiver going against Fisher on any given game, Ron bartell is the back-up, but should be starting ahead of Fisher. This is nothing new...remember when Fisher poked Steve Smith in the eye during the divisional playoff game in 2003? He did it because he gets burned.

I would respectfully have to disagree with youre assessment of fisher. I was at the game in phoenix , and the time that he was burned, they were in a blitz package, which meanes he's got no help. i do not want to put all the blame on travis for some of his blown covers, but some of that blame has to fall on haslett and the agressive D that he's trying to implement. That said, I would rather have them stay the course. WE ALL KNEW coming in to this season, that it would be a new beginning. Have faith my brother, travis will come around or he'll be gone. Thats life. P.S. I should have been suspicious when you sold me that autographed ball from fish so cheap!! :r

[Nick]

We have to consider that in earning the starting job, Fisher proved something to the coaching staff above and beyond what either Bartell or Hill have offered.

Especially when you consider the rumors of Fisher being on the market for a trade around draft time because he was in Haslett's doghouse. Quite a turn around it would seem, going from wanting to get rid of the guy to starting him despite the fact that he's supposedly stinking it up.

Or maybe Haslett doesn't think he's stinking it up? Food for thought.

it doesn't surprise me that fisher has only 7 int.s and 22 breakups in 53 career games...but like you mentioned, he isn't so bad as to blow assignments often and get beat for TDs regularly...

The stat site I reference credits him with 29 passes deflected through 53 games, or about one break up every two games on average in his career. For comparison purposes, Butler who is widely touted as being much better in coverage than Fisher has 32 deflections through 59 games played.

Interestingly enough, the statistical edge goes to Fisher in this category.

He hardly ever gets any turnovers either: 7 int's in 53 games over his career, and only 1 interception in the last 3 seasons (2004, 2005, 2006). And only 2 forced fumbles in his career.

Lack of turnovers is a concern that I believe HUb and I touched upon. Fisher actually had a good year in 2003 with four interceptions, two of which he actually returned for touchdowns. But since then he's not done quite so well at creating turnovers. It's definitely an issue, I agree. We'll have to see how he finishes the season.

I don't think he does a good job of breaking up the pass either, that one pass against Green Bay where he deflects the ball appears in fact to be his only pass defensed this season in 6 games, and only 22 throughout his 5 year career.

See above response to rampete.

However I don't think he's a very good tackler either

He misses a couple here or there like most players do, but I would contend he makes quite a few for being a small corner and is a fairly solid tackler overall. I can provide specific examples later this week if you'd like. I say later this week only because my afternoons tomorrow and Friday likely won't be condusive to spending time analysing as much game tape.

All in all I see a pedestrain corner that doesn't make any big plays and gives up lots of plays

If you define big plays as turnovers, then I'd agree. However I think there are other big plays to be made besides changes of possession. Refer to the Detroit example I mentioned to HUb earlier in the thread. On a key third down and goal in the red zone, Jon Kitna hit his tight end in the flat and it looked like Detroit was going to score another touchdown. Instead though, Fisher closes the distance and forces the much larger tight end out of bounds, preventing a TD. I'd say that's a fairly big play, considering it's a difference of four points in that game.

Can anyone provide any stats that prove over the last three years that he is not a bad CB. Tackles dont count IMO because that can be deceptive for a corner seeing how if they deny the ball to their person they won't get the tackles. How about average # of attempts thrown at per INT. How about pass breakups per attempt. Any proof that he is not as bad as almost everyone says. Can anyone provide any proof that he is not a bad CB. To anyone that says he is not a bad CB can you provide proof too the many that think he is bad and have provided the stats as well as their opinions after watching him play since 2003.

Even if he were there stride for stride on every play that does no good if the guy catches it or its a bad throw and it hits him and he can't get the INT because he don't play the ball. If he wants to be stride for stride every play and not make the play he should be in the escort business.

The statistical records for corners accessible by the general public online are not very well kept or to the detail you are looking for. I'm not sure if average # of attempts thrown per INT is even recorded, same goes for pass break-ups per attempt. That being said, there's an interesting stat that was brought up by rampete earlier that I reference in this response which you may want to take a look at.

As for providing other evidence that he is not a bad corner, I believe I've been attempting to do that in both this and other past threads by going back and looking at film for this season and providing an analysis based on what I see. I've really tried to shy away from making points simply with stats because statistics for corners, as you said, can be quite deceptive at times, and since I have the game tape to for this season, I might as well use it. Other threads in which I've provided some detailed thoughts on Fisher's play based on direct observation have been here and here, and I plan on posting an article tomorrow in which I analyze Fisher's contributions in the Seattle game from last weekend.

That being said, when a cornerback is stride for stride with a receiver, I think that's pretty good coverage regardless of the outcome. The completion of a pass against that coverage does not negate the fact that the player was right there with his man, and I really don't think you gain an accurate picure of a DB's play by concluding that he's playing poorly if someone simply catches a ball against him. That happens even against elite corners in this league. One must examine why such a pass was completed against that coverage - was the pass simply perfectly thrown and the receiver lead well, or did the corner truly make a mistake that allowed the catch? That's where looking at the game tape comes in handy.

If some people want everyone to prove that he is a bad CB before making their statements. Then they should lead by example and provide proof that he is not a bad CB before refuting others opinions.

...which I have been doing both in this post (see: analysis on Branch touchdown catch, example of Fisher playing ball in air against GB in response to claims he never has done so, general comments to Utter on multiple points with supportive statements citing specific game examples, analysis of Detroit game in response to HUb), and the two links I supplied above, and will also be doing in tomorrow's analysis of the entire Patriots game.

I have been providing specific examples to support my opinion. I'm still waiting for someone on the other side to really start doing the same to try and convince me.

What I notice about Fisher is his boys seem to get open alot on crossing patterns.

I'm not sure about it happening on a lot of them, but he has yielded some space on crossing patterns that I think could be tightened up. Good point.

When we played Detroit Mike Furrey made him look like a fool a couple times.

When? When we played Detroit and Fisher was covering Furrey, Mike had 3 catches for for 33 yards. That's hardly a performance that should embarass Fisher. I would think the people who were closer to looking like fools from the Detroit game would be Fakhir Brown and Tye Hill, who both allowed touchdowns to Mike Furrey.

Then again neither does Tye Hill, Corey Chavous, Atogwe, the whole Rams secondary.

Perhaps it's a coaching issue then?

All the Rams defenders had to do was turn their heads.

OJ Atogwe did turn his head to find the ball on the triple covered Jackson TD... then promptly tripped over his own feet and took himself out of the play. Tye Hill turned to find the ball on Branch's first TD catch and the hesitation allowed Branch to adjust to the throw and gain position on Hill for the grab.

Turning to find the ball is hardly an automatic success for DBs, and can sometimes completely take a guy out of the play because he's inaccurately judged where the ball is going or has lost good position on his man by focusing on something else.

On that note lets take Branches second TD. When the receiver is in the end zone on a go route the ball is coming. If it is not then he is running straight out the end zone.Why would you not look for the ball when you know your man has a half step and is running out of field?

Well, look at the play. The ball is thrown when Branch and Fisher are on or around the ten yard line. Branch is hardly cornered in the back of the end zone with no space to maneuver. He still has twenty yards in front of him to work - the ten to the goalline and the ten of actual end zone. And all Deion has to do is get two toes in bounds.

So why would you not turn to look for the ball? Because Branch is hardly running out of field and with no safety help you have to make sure you're on him tight. If Fisher turns to find the ball and that half step becomes one and a half steps as Fisher not only locates the ball but sees it's being thrown perfectly and he has no shot at it now, then there would really be a case to be made about poor coverage on that play.

As it stands though, I don't think you can ask him to do more than he did.

What's interesting is that if you watch the play and keep an eye on the other DBs in man coverage, they're not turning back and looking for the ball either. All we can really see of Hill is that he gets a hand on his receiver and then turns to run with him with his back to Hasselbeck. It doesn't appear as if he's turned to watch the throw. Chavous is on the tight end and is watching his receiver the whole way. He's looking at the guy he's covering and, based on his reaction, can tell the ball isn't coming that way. I don't think Chavous turns to look elsewhere until the ball is halfway toward its target and by that time he already is pulling up because he knows that's not the man he's covering.

i do not want to put all the blame on travis for some of his blown covers, but some of that blame has to fall on haslett and the agressive D that he's trying to implement.

This is a very good point. It's been widely discussed that teams who play with aggression will get burned from time to time and that blitzing really exposes your secondary. So why is it whenever we take a risk, fail, and the other team makes a play, that's suddenly forgotten and the finger pointing begins?

When you run a defensive scheme that's as aggressive as this one, you're going to get burned from time to time. It's the nature of the scheme.

[LaRamsFanLongTime]

Perhaps it's a coaching issue then?

Im afraid that may be out. Im not here to say oh Haslett sucks I just think that someone in the coaching staff needs to say "HEY WHAT THE HELL ARE WE DOING?"

When? When we played Detroit and Fisher was covering Furrey, Mike had 3 catches for for 33 yards. That's hardly a performance that should embarass Fisher. I would think the people who were closer to looking like fools from the Detroit game would be Fakhir Brown and Tye Hill, who both allowed touchdowns to Mike Furrey.

Yeah maybe Im jumping the gun. Maybe it was Williams who made him look the fool but then again he made the whole team look the fool.

Maybe we as a collective need to stop saying "Its Fisher" step back take a breath and think well maybe this secondary is not that great. I really do not think we have a solid core back there. Every team we have played with the exception of the Broncos has been able to have their way with our secondary.

Im a beleiver in Haslett Im still not completely there on Linehan but I do like where he seems to be taking this team. The new Staff inherited one of the worst defenses in the history of football so I am gonna just try and be patient with all this.

P.S what is up with Butler I will be honest im ignorant to what is going on with him at the moment. I have always liked him and want him back and healthy.

[Nick]

Im afraid that may be out. Im not here to say oh Haslett sucks I just think that someone in the coaching staff needs to say "HEY WHAT THE HELL ARE WE DOING?"

Well, as someone who thinks that playing the receiver and not the ball in certain situations is the right strategy, I can't say I agree. I'm simply trying to suggest that, similarly to where cornerbacks line up on the field, perhaps this tactic is the result of coaching rather than the decision of the actual player and thus people who have an issue with it should be looking at the coaches.

I think though that if a seasoned Pro Bowl vet like Chavous is doing this as I pointed out about the second Branch TD play, then maybe it's really not that horrible of a strategy? I certainly don't think he came here and completely relearned how to play the position, including this new tactic. Heck, I've watched Chris McAlister do it on a recently televised Ravens game. I just don't think it's that abnormal nor do I feel it's a bad strategy when used correctly, and in the case of Branch's touchdown catch, I think Fisher was using it correctly, especially since he wasn't the only DB on the field doing it in that situation.

Maybe we as a collective need to stop saying "Its Fisher" step back take a breath and think well maybe this secondary is not that great. I really do not think we have a solid core back there. Every team we have played with the exception of the Broncos has been able to have their way with our secondary.

Perhaps. I certainly don't think we have a great secondary. In my opinion, Brown and Chavous are good while Fisher and Atogwe are solid. Tye Hill I think has had a lot of growing pains this season but I've seen flashes of why we drafted him so high and I think he'll turn out to be a playmaker.

That being said, when you run an aggressive scheme that is centered around pressure and forcing mistakes, I don't think you need an all-star Baltimore Ravens-like secondary. What I think you need and what is essential in this kind of scheme is the ability to consistently get that pressure.

For us, I think that means another defensive lineman who can regularly take advantage of the double teams Little is commanding. So that would be my first priority, with additional upgrades to the secondary appearing later on the list but not at the top.

P.S what is up with Butler I will be honest im ignorant to what is going on with him at the moment. I have always liked him and want him back and healthy.

Based on what I've heard, special teams is a big issue. When you're not a starter and you're a depth player, you've got to make contributions in other facets of the game if you want to see the field. Butler apparently does not make good special teams contributions.

Furthermore, Haslett's aggressive scheme requires his corners to blitz on occasion, something we've seen less of with Brown being injured. You've got to be physical when you blitz, because you may have to take on and shed a running back or a tight end to get to the QB. Butler, IMO, is just not a physical player. I've watched him shy away from contact and hesitate to fill holes in the running game.

The best specific example I can remember of Butler's lack of physicality is actually from the last game he played in before his big injury - the 2004 Atlanta playoff game. Score is tied 7-7, and Butler had a chance to bring down Warrick Dunn to prevent a big run but his attempt at a tackle more closely resembles someone playing touch football (visible at the 2:28 mark in this video, be careful because the sound is waaay too loud but keep watching after the play because they show a closer replay).

So it would seem between not making a strong special teams contribution combined with not being the kind of player that fits well with what Haslett wants his DBs to do, Butler just isn't going to see a lot of time on the field. It will be interesting to see what happens to Butler in the offseason. He's not getting used here, but could have value elsewhere, which means a trade may be possible.