Two weeks ago, a wise man wrote...

**AvengerRam** · #1 (**permalink**) -31-10-2005

Two weeks ago, a wise man wrote the following comment:

If the Rams turn things around, I fear that there will be many who will see that as ammunition against Coach Martz.

It has already started.

The media and fans have started singing Interim Head Coach Vitt's praises. He's changed the offense. He's changed the attitude. He's intilled toughness. He's shown appropriate conservatism. He's won two in a row.

Well... maybe.

To attribute that to Vitt, you have to presume that Mike Martz would not have rallied the troops in the face of injuries. You have to presume he would not have focused more on Jackson in Bulger, Holt and Bruce's absence. You have to presume that the team would not have similarly rallied if he were here.

I'm not ready to presume all that.

The truth is, the Rams won two fairly close games against one sub-par and one decent, but flawed, opponent, while playing on their home turf.

I'm not ready to annoint Vitt as a savior quite yet, nor am I ready to declare that "things have really changed since Mike Martz left."

This is still Mike Martz's team.

Win or lose.

*CRAZYHORNS* · #2 (**permalink**) -31-10-2005

I agree 100%

*RamJackson39* · #3 (**permalink**) -31-10-2005

Quote:

To attribute that to Vitt, you have to presume that Mike Martz would not have rallied the troops in the face of injuries. You have to presume he would not have focused more on Jackson in Bulger, Holt and Bruce's absence. You have to presume that the team would not have similarly rallied if he were here.

The difference is not the offence. It is the defense. Vitt has instilled his personality in it. It is playing much better, blitzing much more, and that is why the Rams have won.

Do I anoint Vitt as the second coming of God himself? No. I do believe, though, that we would not have beaten the Jags unless Vitt had done something with the defense.

*rampete* · #4 (**permalink**) -31-10-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by AvengerRam

Two weeks ago, a wise man wrote the following comment...

how does this person qualify as "wise"...?

prophetic or cynical may be a better fit, don't you think?

**HUbison** · #5 (**permalink**) -31-10-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by rampete

how does this person qualify as "wise"...?

prophetic or cynical may be a better fit, don't you think?

Maybe, but then again, I can't think of a single cynical prophet that isn't wise.

**HUbison** · #6 (**permalink**) -31-10-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by RJ39

The difference is not the offence. It is the defense. Vitt has instilled his personality in it. It is playing much better, blitzing much more, and that is why the Rams have won.

Excellent point, RJ! The offense isn't doing anything different. Jackson is running the ball more, but with Martin at QB, would Martz have done anything different? Maybe, maybe not, but I doubt it.

As you pointed out, the difference is in the defense. Since Vitt has taken over, we've stopped bailing on the base defense. Before we were throwing out the blitz with the bath water and spending 90% of our D downs in a nickel package. Now we're staying in base and blitzing more. A successful blitz package can make a sloppy secondary look a lot better than they are.

IMHO, it's not that Vitt is an improvement over Martz. It's that Vitt is an improvement over Marmie.

*r8rh8rmike* · #7 (**permalink**) -31-10-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by RamJackson39

The difference is not the offence. It is the defense. Vitt has instilled his personality in it. It is playing much better, blitzing much more, and that is why the Rams have won.

I tend to agree with this. The shadow and influence of Mike Martz is still very much on this team, but with Vitt in the position of head coach, I think he's able to have more of a say in what happens on defense, without Marmie being able to run to Martz in protest. So far, it looks to be working.

*viper* · #8 (**permalink**) -31-10-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by HUbison

Excellent point, RJ! The offense isn't doing anything different. Jackson is running the ball more, but with Martin at QB, would Martz have done anything different? Maybe, maybe not, but I doubt it.

As you pointed out, the difference is in the defense. Since Vitt has taken over, we've stopped bailing on the base defense. Before we were throwing out the blitz with the bath water and spending 90% of our D downs in a nickel package. Now we're staying in base and blitzing more. A successful blitz package can make a sloppy secondary look a lot better than they are.

IMHO, it's not that Vitt is an improvement over Martz. It's that Vitt is an improvement over Marmie.

Would it be safe to say because we are blitzing more our secondary is looking better, but, our run defense is suffering for it?

In any event, I like the more aggressive version we are running lately. Hopefully, they will be able to get a handle on stopping the run more consistently. They look great at times and terrible at others.

*sbramfan* · #9 (**permalink**) -01-11-2005

Ufortunately for Martz, he didn't get the chance to try to turn things around, so if this team improves, it will look like Vitt is the reason.

And if they do turn this around, perhaps it is the reason.

*NY RAMFAN* · #10 (**permalink**) -01-11-2005

I'm sorry gentleman but saying that this team has turned around because Martz is no more is a truly disrespect of the coaching staff and the players. We've been in this situtation many times before (just look back one season) and we turned things around, but guess what . . . MM was on command, and Vitt was just next to him, so were these same players (thank God Chandler is not!). Nobody would never think that the players also owe loyalty to the guy that leaded them to a SB and only had 1 lossing season and they also play to give back something to the guy that trust them and put them on the field???
I'm sorry, but the coaching staff are not stupid, neither the player or myself, Vitt is doing a great job and turned things around but I believe that MM would have done the same thing.
Don't forget who is MM: 3rd winning% coach, I NFC ch., only 1 loosing season, 2 mvp and also off. coach of the GSOT.

*AJD45* · #11 (**permalink**) -01-11-2005

I was among those hoping Vitt would in fact make things better (simply because now the Rams have a full-time head coach as opposed to MM splitting time between coach/coordinator). But I haven't seen much different. It's still a freakin' contest each week to see which Ram can come up with the most idiotic penalty, jump offsides the most, run into a guy calling a fair catch, step out of bounds at the one, etc. Unless Vitt does something like hold cadence class instead of giving the team Monday off or something, color me unimpressed.

*Ferter* · #12 (**permalink**) -01-11-2005

Should we presume that, in the absence of the Rams starting QB, during the 2004 season, that Martz would use chandler in his offense, just as he used the starting QB in his offense?

Or should we just chalk that up to idiotic fact?

**AvengerRam** · #13 (**permalink**) -01-11-2005

Chandler at least had Holt and Bruce to throw to (not that he did - he preferred throwing to the other team).

*Ferter* · #14 (**permalink**) -01-11-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by AvengerRam

Chandler at least had Holt and Bruce to throw to (not that he did - he preferred throwing to the other team).

Point taken.

But Martz never showed much willingness to change the play calling to fit the back-up QB.

It's the Roy McAvoy principle. It's always about what Martz thinks a player or players may be able to do, rather what they actually can do.

*ramsbruce* · #15 (**permalink**) -02-11-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferter

It's the Roy McAvoy principle. It's always about what Martz thinks a player or players may be able to do, rather what they actually can do.

Example Lamar Gordon as our Fullback :tut