A Stat That Suggests The Ram Should Draft Offensive Players

[RockinRam]

Because improving the defense brings them within range of even our toothless offense. And that's where the wins come.

One of the biggest, if often ignored lessons of the Martz Era: If you want to win, you need to be able to stop the other guy from scoring.

Actually, if you want to win, you're gonna need to score points.


Offense wins games. Defense just helps the process. If you cannot put points on the board, bluntly, you are screwed.

It doesn't matter if we have a top notch defense. If our offense cannot score worth a damn, our top notch defense is going to wear out eventually.


The logic is clear. I don't really see how people can refute, unless they do it just for the sake of refuting...

[Bralidore(RAMMODE)]

This is amazingly simple. Why don't we just draft to get a competent offense AND defense? O.o

By all accounts because we pick Bradford first does not mean we are forsaking the defense. We're trying to build a great all around team and that isn't likely to happen in one draft even if all our picks became starters.

[thermobee]

No, not really. If the offense becomes a slightly more credible threat, the other guys won't call off their offensive dogs after the break like they did this year. The result is still the same. We lose. Badly.

Let's look at the example of the New Orleans game that the Pollyanna Brigade likes to cite to support their contention that the team could be good. If we have a slightly more credible offense, the Saints don't spend 60 minutes screwing around on the football field and instead blow us out of the water with their superior talent and our weak defense.



Those aren't defensive positions. Unless you propose postponing OT and backup RB to Day 3, that doesn't really help us.

Dude whats wrong with you? Av made a very reasonable, and in my opinion correct, argument and you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

[PeoriaRam]

Dude whats wrong with you? Av made a very reasonable, and in my opinion correct, argument and you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Because I remember that we had one of the best and most talented offensive systems in league history the first part of the decade, and those teams were perpetually done in by shoddy defensive play.

Our defense at present is as bad as those defenses, if not worse.

So if even the GSOT couldn't overcome the bad play of its defense, and we're a few years away from building something resembling that offense, maybe we need to think about fixing up the defense a little. Especially in a draft that everyone claims is loaded with defensive talent. Preferably early, because what we really need is starters, and those are kind of hard to find past Round 3.

[thermobee]

Because I remember that we had one of the best and most talented offensive systems in league history the first part of the decade, and those teams were perpetually done in by shoddy defensive play.

Our defense at present is as bad as those defenses, if not worse.

So if even the GSOT couldn't overcome the bad play of its defense, and we're a few years away from building something resembling that offense, maybe we need to think about fixing up the defense a little. Especially in a draft that everyone claims is loaded with defensive talent. Preferably early, because what we really need is starters, and those are kind of hard to find past Round 3.

The defense is way better than you give it credit for. I myself was thinking the whole season that if our defense didnt get the bad field position and wasnt on the field all the freaking time, they will hold teams to a pretty low avg score. And av completely proved it by the stats he provided, I have no idea where your argument is.

[PeoriaRam]

The defense is way better than you give it credit for. I myself was thinking the whole season that if our defense didnt get the bad field position and wasnt on the field all the freaking time, they will hold teams to a pretty low avg score. And av completely proved it by the stats he provided, I have no idea where your argument is.

Except:

1. The bad field position was as much their own making through a "bend but don't break" performance (if not philosophy) that made it difficult for them to get off the field without surrendering field position, (or you know...not being on the field all the freaking time).
2. They weren't on the field all the freaking time. Our offensive time of possession was almost 29 minutes.
3. The era of the defense not spotting an early lead to the opponent coincidentally appears to end around the time we traded Witherspoon for everybody's favorite possession receiver. Have we really replaced him yet?

[Damned Ramz]

You can throw time of possesion stats at me all day but there is no way you can convince me that the rams offense was nothing short of horrendous

by the end of the year the null space and co. was pretty hard to watch, I remember going ecstatic when the rams would actually get a first down...

not to say the defense was spectacular...theres a reason the rams are picking number one overall, but when i watched rams games it seemed like there was a disparity between offensive and defensive talent.
All in all I hope we address the offense more so than the defense, and hopefully get a little more balance next season

[RockinRam]

When this message board is going crazy on game days when we get a first down, that's a sign of how pitiful the offense is...



AND, AV already stated the possession time is inflated due to our run first mentality.

[Canadian Rams Fan]

I happen to agree with A.V 100%. The notion that your defence would be better with a better offence is not speculation its a fact.

Also this notion that the Rams will take Sam Bradford #1 right now is pure speculation at this time.

We all know and agree that the Rams are a running team. Which means that you do not need the best quaterback available in this years draft knowing he will be handing the ball off more than half the time.

What you need I.M.O is a good game manager. Just look at the 2000 Baltimore Ravens. Their is still a pretty good quaterback which I.M.O will be available in the second round in Colt McCoy. Which allows the Rams to draft Suh.

I am a big supporter of Suh, but I also really like Bradford this is the reason I am so torn right now.

I also do not believe that A.V was saying the Rams need to only address one side of the field but mostly through great arguments and research was providing solid reasoning as to why they need to address the offence more than the defence. Which I.M.O the offence was abysmal last year.

Here is to an exciting upcoming draft I for one can not wait.

Go Rams 2010

[Goldenfleece]

We all know and agree that the Rams are a running team. Which means that you do not need the best quaterback available in this years draft knowing he will be handing the ball off more than half the time.

We do? According to NFL.com, we had 543 (56.9%) pass attempts last season and 411 (43.1%) rush attempts. I don't know where that ranks in the NFL, but it doesn't strike me as particularly run heavy.

What you need I.M.O is a good game manager. Just look at the 2000 Baltimore Ravens. Their is still a pretty good quaterback which I.M.O will be available in the second round in Colt McCoy. Which allows the Rams to draft Suh.

Wouldn't you agree that the 2000 Ravens were more the exception than the rule? They had arguably one of the best defenses in NFL history. Anything less and they wouldn't have made it that far. That team never made it back to the big game, either.

Getting back to the 2009 Rams, the argument is difficult because we're trying to determine the difference between bad and worse. I mean only 20th in time of possession is hardly a ringing endorsement. To me the most significant stat is that we scored an average of 10.9 points/game. We would have to have that 2000 Ravens defense (which allowed an average of 10.3 points/game) in order to win games with an offense like that.

[Nick]

Based on their production and efficiency last year, I would agree that the offense was in worse shape than the defense, and perhaps more in need of a talent upgrade. However, I think when you break down the two sides of the ball, and look at the eleven positions, both are about equally filled and equally in need in terms of positions that need upgraded.

Defensively, I think the Rams are set at five positions - RDE (Long), NT (Ryan), MLB (Laurinaitis), CB1 (Bartell), and FS (Atogwe). The Rams could use defensive upgrades at six positions - UT, LDE, OLB x2, CB2, and SS.

Offensively, I think the Rams are set at six positions - RB (Jackson), FB (Karney), WR2 (Robinson/Avery/Gibson), LT (Smith), LG (Bell), and C (Brown). Which means they could use offensive upgrades at five positions - QB, WR1, TE, RG, and RT.

Now, that breakdown is up for debate, but I felt like I was being pretty conservative in estimating what this team actually has. After all, you don't get to 1-15 because you have a good deal of talent and just a few holes. You get to 1-15 because you lack talent across the board and have numerous holes.

I appreciate the argument that a better offense helps out the defense. But I think if anyone is looking at this defensive unit and thinking it's a good offense away from being good defense, then they're only kidding themselves. Yes, the Rams' defense on occasion failed to make stops because they were gassed. But they also failed to make stops because they're just not very good. For instance, you can't tell me this team was among the worst in forcing turnovers and the worst in accumulating sacks simply because they were gassed. That's a factor, but it goes beyond that.

I think the Rams are essentially fielding half a unit of capable starters on either side of the ball, and thus, shouldn't make it a point to draft offensive players if it's at the expense of higher-rated defensive players on the board who also play at a position of need. If the best player on the board is an offensive guy, go for it. But if the best player on the board is a defensive player at the position of need, I'm not convinced we should pass on him simply because the offense may need more help.

[39thebeast]

Defensively, I think the Rams are set at five positions - RDE (Long), NT (Ryan), MLB (Laurinaitis), CB1 (Bartell), and FS (Atogwe). The Rams could use defensive upgrades at six positions - UT, LDE, OLB x2, CB2, and SS.

Offensively, I think the Rams are set at six positions - RB (Jackson), FB (Karney), WR2 (Robinson/Avery/Gibson), LT (Smith), LG (Bell), and C (Brown). Which means they could use offensive upgrades at five positions - QB, WR1, TE, RG, and RT.

SS I thinks its safe to say Butler is the starter. Between Vobora and Diggs you could also say we are good at SLB. They seem to really like Fletcher especially if can come back healthy, but I wont make him a lock. Gotta question where Scott and Robbins fit into the picture also.

Fraley/Grecco/Goldberg could hold down RG spot. I can't really disagree anywhere else on offense.

[Nick]

SS I thinks its safe to say Butler is the starter. Between Vobora and Diggs you could also say we are good at SLB. They seem to really like Fletcher especially if can come back healthy, but I wont make him a lock. Gotta question where Scott and Robbins fit into the picture also.

Fraley/Grecco/Goldberg could hold down RG spot. I can't really disagree anywhere else on offense.

My exercise wasn't to identify positions where we need starters, but rather positions where we need upgrades. Butler is a starter at strong safety, but I think he can be upgraded. Same for both outside linebackers.

As I said, I was rather conservative on both sides. Like you said, I could have listed Fraley or Goldberg as filling the need at RG, and certainly could have listed Barron as filling the need at RT. But I think both of those spots need upgraded as well.

The mistake too many of us make, I believe, is that we see a 1-15 team but for some reason struggle to find individual places to improve because we overrate our talent. I tried to avoid doing that, hence why I viewed guys like Diggs, Vobora, Butler, Robbins, Barron, Goldberg, etc as being worthy of an upgrade.

[Ventesette]

One thing that some people forget is that improving the offense sometimes actually hurts the defense. When you have a threatening offense teams have a tendency to take chances and keep the pedal to the floor on offense. With a weak offense the other team often plays it close to the vest, doesn't take any chances.

I saw this up close with the Jets in '09. They had the #1 D in football, but a contributing factor was the weak offense and the rookie QB. Other teams counted on the Jets offense to lose the game and it often worked. (3INTs v. NO, 6INTs v. Bills). Opponents could run the ball and play close to the vest. When the offense does some damage other teams will open up. The team end up better, but the D will probably have worse stats.

[dave626]

[QUOTE=PeoriaRam;341174]Because improving the defense brings them within range of even our toothless offense. And that's where the wins come.

Our defense did get pounded last year no question, but we need offensive playmakers more than anything.

I completely disagree with your point about bringing the scoring within range of our offense.

We have no offensive range, even if we held our opponents to 10 points a game, (which our defense would have to be AWSOME to do that) we still have NO way of putting up points.

We need offense plain and simple, Despags even said that keeping the offense on the field will help our defense. The only way that happens is if we get playmakers in the draft because we are'nt getting them in FA.

Maybe next year we could focus on defense but we NEED to score, and thats the first thing I would focus on if I were drafting.

GO RAMS!!!