What move or decision do you think has the highest risk factor?
Printable View
What move or decision do you think has the highest risk factor?
I voted, "Keeping Saffold and Smith at the starting OT spots," but I think you could extend that to the situation at left guard as well, as I think it's also a gamble for the Rams to count on any of the guys who could potentially fill that spot. Sometimes though, when you gamble, you win, and I'm hoping the Rams find themselves in that situation when it comes to the offensive line.
To me, its definitely the two offensive tackles. Both young players with upside, both coming off season ending injuries (smith has been hurt a number of times), very little depth on the roster at that position, and big problems running the offense if you can't get solid play out of your tackles (as we have seen in the past).
ramming speed to all
general counsel
Saffold and Smith. I'm still scared of that O-line and the ability to protect Bradford. We did get Scott Wells so that's a plus but it will take more than that.
I think its worth noting that every team, to some degree or another, takes risks. Certainly, some teams take more or bigger risks than others, but there is not a team that is "set" with an established player in his prime at every position.
The question is, which risks will pay off (i.e. "we will rally around Kurt Warner") and which do not (i.e. "Ben Leber and Brady Poppinga will be fine as starting OLBs."). The answer will decide this, and most teams', fates.
Not replacing Gregg Williams at DC. Not naming a DC bothers me more then anything we have done to this point.
Saffold and Smith was a concern, I guess I'm buying into what I have been reading so far. Saffold has added weight and is much stronger. Smith is also in great shape and is getting coached up.
Rambos - if it doesn't bother Fisher and co. why does it bother you so much? Just because we don't have 1 person with the DC title doesn't mean its going to be chaotic...
Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bing69
I would think if a defense or offense could be ran by committee there would not be a need for a defensive coordinator. I think at some point Fisher will have one person dedicated to calling the plays.
I am definitely not sold by the defense by committee type approach, but we'll see how that plays out.
I voted Saffold & Smith, because Smith so far has not shown us any reason for why we drafted him 2nd overall, and I will wait and see if Saffold's new weight and improved technique will fare him better.
Agree with everyone above. I don't trust Saffold or Smith anymore.
OT's for me, but i do think we will have it fixed this season.
Defense by committee worries me. If it's not handled with a deft touch, there is the potential for things to get out of hand. What happens if something goes wrong and the finger pointing starts? Where will the buck stop? Who will the players go to for direction? Who will set the tone and be the leader? I'm hoping Fisher defines strict boundries on who handles what and that everybody concerned embraces their responsibilities.
I'm not saying it can't work, but it does make things more difficult and less cohesive IMO. Guess we'll see.
For me, its putting faith in "troubled" guys like Jenkins and Johnson. My feelings on this is well documented and I won't get into the nuts and bolts of everything again. But relying heavily on talented but troubled individuals rarely pays huge dividends and more often than not ends poorly for one reason or another. And when a bad team does it, the downside could be tremendous. I'm simply not a fan of this practice. As a coach, I've seen things unravel far too often.
Dave McGinniss- a defensive guy with head coaching experience- will take care of the defense. We have a defensive guy as our head coach. I'm not concerned in the least about who calls the defensive sets.
Saffold and Smith are indeed a concern, but they've been productive before, and I'm hopeful they'll regain that under Boudreau.
I went with the rookie receivers. Like Steven Jackson kind of pointed out recently, much will depend on whether Mike Quick can get this thing down as soon as possible. We'll see.
I understand the concerns about Jenkins and Johnson. Johnson was a third round pick and will have to work hard and show a lot to play in the nickle, so I don't think we are relying heavily on Johnson. Jenkins was one of two second round picks, that we did not have going into the draft. He has got off to a a great start early in OTA's but if he does do something stupid off the field which is possible. I don't see him as someone we are relying heavily.We brought in Cortland Finnegan at $50 million, I would say we are relying heavily Finnegan. We still have Bradley Fletcher, Jerome Murphy and Josh Gordy. All I see is upside if he plays great and stays out of trouble and as long as we have some depth behind him.Quote:
Originally Posted by NJ Ramsfan1
Other teams have notice our secondary and how deep it is and are looking to get their hands one some of these guys.
Having McGinniss is nice, from what I have read McGinniss is in all meetings overseeing all three facets of the team. Would be nice if he was named the DC IMO.Quote:
St. Louis Rams head coach Jeff Fisher said that other teams were already calling about the Rams' stable of young cornerbacks. It comes as a mild surprise that teams would be looking into scoring some young talent on the cheap, but the real shocker is that the Rams finally have a deep enough stable of cornerbacks that rival teams would actually be interested in some of their players. Fortunately, Fisher was in no hurry to make any moves.
OT's as some have said the scheme alone should help them play better I hope.