What would you do?

[laram0]

Although I don't have the stats from last preseasons games. I feel pretty confident in saying that Linehan didn't play our starters enough. At least not as much as the rest of the NFL teams.

Obviously Linehan didn't want to take any chances with our starters. (getting injured before the regular season started). We all know that backfired in a big way.

The other thing is how important are "WINS" in the preseason?

On top of all that, this is Linehan's 3rd year as our headcoach. If he wants to keep his job there has to be a major turnaround in the win/loss column.

I'll be the first to say the Scott Linehan has tremendous pressure on himself going into 2008. (that's assuming he wants to remain our headcoach) The pressure starts in the preseason.

[skelley]

I don't think pre season stats mean anything. However during our "Greatest Show on Turf" days our slowest starts or sloppiest starts came in years our Offensive starters played very little in preseason.

But looking at some guys excelling without training camp, I'd say take it easy on Vets in camp & then play them in pre season more.

[ramsanddodgers]

I am not a fan of 'stats' period.

While they are all we really have to compare players each game is different in it's own way with different players being on the field for both teams due to injuries or substitutions and a myriad of options to choose from as plays unfold on the gridiron.

Stats are no doubt more accurate than what we may see through rose colored glasses, but cannot be considered an end-all when in conversations debating any particular players or teams attributes or shortcomings.

But then, sometimes stats are all we got?

[rampower]

I do spend a lot of time analizing stats, but your right, there is more at pley than pure numbers. I stutering offense coughing up the ball, often, in its own back yard can make an ok D look awful in terms of points scored.

I suppose the stats that really really matter is enough points to win, wins themselves and of course superbowl wins.

[MauiRam]

Originally Posted by skelley

But looking at some guys excelling without training camp,I'd say take it easy on Vets in camp & then play them in pre season more.

I believe that coaches adhere to your philosophy to an extent in that if a vet player knows his assignments and executes them well in camp, then that vet earns the right to have his camp reps limited, while at the same time allowing less experienced players to obtain more reps. Regarding playing time in pre-season games, I think alot depends on how well they play in pre-season. If the starting offense is executing well, in their initial series (something we Ram fans have not witnessed in pre-season for a while), then pull them after the first series or two. Conversely if they look really rusty and disorganised etc., then I think it's better to give them more playing time. As far as the injury risk goes - you can't play or coach scared. If your starters aren't cutting it right off the bat, sitting them in live games during pre-season won't make them better. Last year our starting O rather than inspiring fear in opposing Ds, more often sputtered, and that's how we started the regular season .. sputtering ..

[edickerson29]

The Rams need to make the playoffs if he wants to keep his job.