Alright be honest...did you know who that was immediately or did you google?
I've seen He Got Game many times. I'm a huge Denzel fan. My roommate of the past three years is a huge Ray Allen fan. Very good movie.

Alright be honest...did you know who that was immediately or did you google?
I've seen He Got Game many times. I'm a huge Denzel fan. My roommate of the past three years is a huge Ray Allen fan. Very good movie.![]()
I'm not fond of it either, but it's a good way to hash out other critical issues.I respect everyone's opinion but this is the stupidest thread ever. Shotty is not the problem.
I wasn't. I haven't been on that bandwagon at all, at any point since he's been here. In fact, I'm pretty sure everyone was on the "keep Schotty band wagon" during the offseason this year when he was interviewing for HC gigs. We had a +106 improvement in total points from 2011 to 2012, and I don't recall many people being upset by the playcalling when Givens lit it up and Kendricks evolved. What I think the problem is, is that we got all these new "toys", and they're not producing due to execution problems, penalties, poor defense (which makes the O one-dimensional), and our starting QB going down. So, naturally, it's the OC's fault.I'm pretty sure everyone was on the "fire schotty band wagon" a couple of wks ago, so I'm not sure why everyone is so surprised by this thread title.
Well, that's kinda my point. When they play poorly, it's his fault. When they did well (last year and the past few games), he barely gets mentioned. The 'dink-n-dunk' approach was an extension of Fisher's desire to supplement a poor running game and also find ways to get RAC out of our speedy receivers. What would have bothered me would have been if he (they) became stubborn and kept trying to make that work when it was failing. I personally find it pragmatic that they changed everything up and refocused their efforts on establishing the run - which subsequently opened up the passing game. The fact that we've been within 7 points in 3 games this year (and driving to win the game in those) is encouraging with all the other things that have gone wrong. We're within a few plays of being 6-3 right now instead of 3-6, but execution lapses keeps fouling everything up.I wasn't talking about offseason, I was talking about during our losing streak before the Jag and Texans wins. Schotty obviously took the Jets team to the playoffs multiple times so I have no doubts in his inability to get there, alot of people have been wondering if he knows how to use our new weapons and have also questioned his dink n dunk passing approach.
lmao!!!....someone who gets my ridiculous references...youre okay in my book
I'm not fond of it either, but it's a good way to hash out other critical issues.
I think a better title would be something like, "Should the Rams go in a different direction at OC next year?"
Titles with absolutes like that ... are kinda meh.
I don't know who the successor is at this point either (Cignetti?), and I always thought it pretty important to groom someone who could run a similar scheme even if they stray from the philosophy a bit. I wouldn't be opposed to upgrading either. Especially if it was Hue or Norv. For me, I'm just not convinced that Schotty is the problem right now, and I've been fairly critical of OCs when I feel they deserve it. I mean, part of me actually WANTS to find something wrong with him; but after rewatching games, I can see that the scheme is a sound one and the in-game adjustments look solid to me.Throw em out anytime, I'm usually good with movie references. Can't promise I'll get them all though.
I mean...if we could get a great play-caller who runs a similar system with the same offensive foundation...like Hue Jackson or Norv Turner...I'd be ok with moving on but Schotty isn't bad at his job. But I'm never opposed to upgrading. However, I don't see either of those guys as realistic possibilities nor do I see Fisher letting Schotty go.
Yeah I agree with this. It seems to come down to execution.I don't know who the successor is at this point either (Cignetti?), and I always thought it pretty important to groom someone who could run a similar scheme even if they stray from the philosophy a bit. I wouldn't be opposed to upgrading either. Especially if it was Hue or Norv. For me, I'm just not convinced that Schotty is the problem right now, and I've been fairly critical of OCs when I feel they deserve it. I mean, part of me actually WANTS to find something wrong with him; but after rewatching games, I can see that the scheme is a sound one and the in-game adjustments look solid to me.
This type of stuff frustrates me to read. Juggs, you're absolutely entitled to your opinion but I think it's an unfair stance to take. Clemens had his most success against Tennessee when he was throwing underneath their zone coverage.
And if we want to talk Sam, Sam wasn't "checking down" when he had a running game. He was lighting defenses up at every level. Sam's "check downs" mainly were coming in the early part of the year when our running game was averaging around 2.5 yards per carry(read: completely ineffective). And he was throwing short because teams were just sitting their safeties back in 2 deep zones to keep us from throwing deep. I thought he could have done more to challenge the intermediate part of the defense but that also meant throwing over levels of defenders which is not easy and a riskier proposition.
Give Sam a running game that needs to be respected which forces teams to bring more players into the box and blitz and Sam is just fine. You can't throw down the field to throw down the field. You gotta take what the defense is giving you.
In fact, that would be one of the few complaints I had about Clemens against Tennessee. There were multiple plays where a WR opened up short and Clemens tried to force it down the field.