No announcement yet.

Whatever happened to...

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Whatever happened to...

    ... the short game. Seems like the Rams have lost their patience on offense. Am I imagining this? I thought there were an awful lot of deep passes down the middle into a secondary that was playing very deep. I remember a lot of very successful quick slants and quick outs in '99. These plays made the deep bombs that much more successful. Oh well, I could be imagining it.

    The Falcons game will be interesting. We'll find out if their legit and if the Rams are shaken.

    Having been a suffering Cardinal footbal fan for years this still ain't half bad. :ram:

  • #2
    I think they were feeling more pressure than expected. I would have like to have seen more of the running game again, it worked well last time. But the Bucs front line was tough, they were stopping the run, which might be why the Rams felt pressured to try to take large chunks of real estate with the passing game. Unfortunately, that wasn't working either.


    • #3
      Running the ball is going to be the key to us winning the whole thing this year. If the Rams don't run the ball more effectively, then I believe we can't win the Super Bowl, or even a playoff game.


      Related Topics


      • Ram Dragoon
        Hybrid verse Conventional: Convention verses Asymmetric
        by Ram Dragoon
        Put 2018 season in the books save for the Championships and Super Bowl, but its safe to conclude the following:

        First up are the hybrid QBs in the league. Watson and Jackson thus far have followed in the foot steps of RG III, Kaepernick, Cordell Stewart, Vick, and Cunningham--they ended up with winning seasons but couldn't get it done when it really matters, the playoffs. Of that list only Kaepernick made it to the Super Bowl (and lost) and is no longer and no long relevant to the game (forget his political views--coaches see the same faults I saw when he was playing; Kaepernick can't read defenses!)

        Only R. Wilson who could be considered a semi-hybrid QB has shown any long term success but when asked to put the game on his arm, he often falls short. There was really no secret why the Squawks adopted a new game plan midseason of run, run and more run first--its because Wilson wasn't getting the job done as a true QB. His legs can buy time to allow him to throw the ball but disciplined defenses maintaining their coverage often would thwart the Squawks passing game. The early part of 2018 season bares that out. With Watson & Jackson their QB skills where questionable and when those skills where needed, they where found wanting. At least Wilson won a Super Bowl. He won one because his running ability was an added asset like Steve Young. Ironically Wilson also lost a Super Bowl because of his arm or lack of QB sills in the waning moments of a Super Bowl.

        Compare all those QBs to the ones who made it to the second round in the playoffs....Goff, Breese, Brady, Prescott, Rivers Mahomes and Luck. Prescott is a poor man's shadow of R. Wilson and is not a franchise QB on any level and was it surprising Prescott failed miserably against the Rams? NO! Lack of a ground game put the ball win or loss squarely on Prescott's shoulders and in his arm. In terms of playoff level of play it was an epic failure along with Luck and Rivers. Perhaps the problem with hybrid QBs is not their athletic talent, but their maturation in developing an understanding of the game, reading defenses, and making pin-point throws. A Goff or a Brady are not going to run for 50 yards in a game, nor is a Rivers or Breeze. They have to get better as QBs because that is all they have as assets as players they have. Its what they learn and don't learn that makes a difference in contender or pretender.

        Why do teams keep going back to the hybrid style of QBs? I really don't know. The Red Skins got one good season out of RG III then bust; The 49whiners got really one good season out of Kaepernick and bust, the same with Cunningham, and a few good seasons with Vick. My memory is foggy with C. Stewart but over all another bust at a hybrid QB. There have been other "mobile" QBs in the league that have made it but as time wears on less and less running for their lives or to make plays. Mahomes will be an...
        -01-13-2019, 04:14 PM
      • PatBR
        What Needs to Happen against the Bucs
        by PatBR
        The run game and quick short passes to open the long ball. Establish the run game and short routes, this usually negates penalties and moves he ball down the field, it also gives momentum to the Offense right from the start, it's hard to defend and it opens up the long ball, as well as the run game. What do you folks think the game plan should be. As well the Rams D need to stay on top of Brady, the one thing Brady HATES is to be rushed.
        -01-20-2022, 08:13 AM
      • Randy
        Martz-Players coach
        by Randy
        Listening to Mike Martz's press conference on Tuesday 12/18 the players have to love this guy. He stood up for Hakim, stating that he is coached to look in front of him to view where the oncoming defenders are at, and the problem lies in his feet positioning. I don't know if I buy that but that's his statement, how can you catch a ball if you are not concentrating on it. Praising Kurt & Grant on the best games of their short NFL careers. Standing up for his players when they wanted challenges. That may burn us in the playoffs but you got to like the aggressive offense. All the other teams in the league except us and San Fran are BORING. RUN-RUN-PASS-PUNT. LOOK FOR RAMS TO GO 14-2, huge blowouts againest Indy and Falcons. Once playoffs start, What do the Bears have? we beat SF consistantly finally, Philly nothing, watch the Pack.
        -12-19-2001, 12:33 PM
      • Coach_Largent
        Tuesday Edition... Saints @ Rams.........(long)
        by Coach_Largent
        Rams fans.... this is the first in my weekly posts that I do for the upcomong weekend. This is just to offer the game from another perspective. I always enjoy going to the enemy forums and checking out the different takes on the game. It is not intended as smack, that is what smack boards are for. I watch tapes of just about every game that I can get my hands on, and between myself and 2 other coaching friends we usually tape 8-10 games a week. Take it as it is.

        So, here we are as little as 3 weeks ago this looked like a possible clash between NFC elite. The battle for NFC West ( and NFC ) supremacy. It has turned into a wild-card hopeful vs. a Super Bowl expectant. Is this realistic ?
        Yes and no. The season is still very early, the inevitable injury bug is starting to hit every team in the league and many team fortunes will be won or lost by undrafted or unheralded young back-ups and grizzled veterans hanging on for one more season as back-ups. That being said, the Rams are playing very well. The improvement in speed on D is evident and they force teams out of their normal gameplans early, in effect, not having defend near as much field or scheme, think of it as defensive offense.

        So what can we expect ? Depends on what New Orleans team shows up and how big the loss of both Willie Roaf, to injury, and Aaron Brooks missing confidence are.

        Let's take a look at the Rams. The first question is, "Are they vulnerable and where ?" The answer came in the most suprising tape of all. The Detroit Lion game. I watched this Monday night tilt live and remember James Stewart taking the Lions straight down the field only to have Batch throw that pass to I don't even know who , for an INT. When watching on tape, I found something WAY more interesting. Stewart got almost all of his yardage (6.8 ypc ) straight up the middle. A-gap.When the Lions ran the stretch or slide plays off-tackle, the Rams swarmed them with LB's and Little off of the backside. Lots of speed. So, my objective was clear, watch the other 5 games and see where guys got yards. Lo and behold the Jets blowout gave me these numbers ( Curtis Martin 4.5, LaMont Jordan 8.5, and Richie Anderson 6.5 ypc ) 9 (of 24) rushes inside the OG's and a 74 % of their rushing yardage on these carries. LaMont Jordan had good success up the gut. The Dolphins and Chan Gailey never went away from the stretch and Smith was bottled up all day by a fast, aggresive defense that was unconcerned with Fiedler.
        So, what does this give the Saints? A liltte hope. The Saints can be effective running the football UP THE GUT. The Rams D is fast and it does hit, and it is improved, so the running game will have to come right up the middle, although I am interested in seeing a team run the counter tre' right at L.Little. Seems like you could take his upfield speed and the pursuit of the LB's and use it against them by trapping him upfield. So, why haven't we seen...
        -10-23-2001, 07:55 AM
      • coy bacon
        The Running Plays Myth
        by coy bacon
        Building upon Mr. Balzer's comments found in the thread entitled: "Balzer comments from Sirius Radio"

        I believe that for many years, experts, analysts, and gits, have said that if Running Back (RB) so and so gets XX amount of carries per game, then that team wins YY% of the time, with YY usually being about 80. The implication, or outright conclusion, behind this is that in order for the team to win, their RB must carry the ball so many times.

        Aristotle weeps.

        I've always felt a bit troubled by such statements, as if its an ace magic formulae for winning football games. Codswallop! Not bloody likely I say! It's another example of easy to swallow inferior analysis.

        Some things Balzer said that are dead on:

        "As I've noted before, if you're getting stuffed for losses on first down, it's tough to keep running."


        "These are typical stats that don't look at the big picture. Why did Jackson get the ball so much in the fourth quarter? Because the Rams had the lead."


        "In most of the games the Rams lost, they fell behind, and often by a lot, which meant they weren't going to run the ball. In those games, Jackson was often stuffed consistently and that led to more passing. When he would get minus 2 yards on first down, passes followed. When he was stopped on 3rd and 1, that turned the ball over to the defense, which kept the chains from moving and fewer offensive plays."

        The point should be obvious: a running game that is ineffective against a particular team should not be used indefinately, especially when they're behind. Isn't it possible that teams with exquisite passing games gain early leads and then run the ball to eat up the clock? But, the dim only look at the stats, and see that the team won, and did a lot of running... therefore run the ball to win is the key!

        Bollocks I say to the formulae of amt. of runs per game equates to wins. Its an uncorrelated relationship.

        If you want to win football games, do what you need to do, to score the most points (duh). That includes runs, or passes, or both, that work. If a D is stacking the line with 8 men 75% of the time the coach better be calling passes.
        -06-15-2006, 07:59 AM