Why you won't recognize the Rams' offense

[RamFan503]

RamFan503 pointing out an omission:
I'd say the Cheatriots are the best example of that. Granted they have the most important piece of the puzzle in Tom Brady but if you look at their teams of the last ten years the Cheatriots have never (with the exception of an aging Moss) had particularly good WRs or RBs. Welker was their DA but it was mostly all about Brady, scheme and up tempo offense IMO. The two TE + 1 slot WR offense that they initiated was innovative and brilliant. And up tempo.

You left out the 12 seconds of clean pocket tommi has enjoyed through most of his career.

That's a very important part of the equation that's for sure. However I wasn't considering the O-line in this conversation. It would be way beyond my abilities to determine whether Schotty ever had a very good O-line but if a good O-line is that determinative then I think there would be a lot more Cheatriot like innovative up tempo teams.

Not sure that necessarily translates. You still have to devote picks on the players to make it happen. But if you can protect the QB, even decent receivers can shake their defenders. We've seen what happens when you make tommi go fetal. That "up tempo" offense dies on the vine. The right personnel can be on the line or at skill positions. A strong case can be made that we have had neither in recent years. Hopefully now we have both. Wouldn't THAT be cool if we're all not just being myopic and we actually DO have a blend of both now.

 

[albefree69]

RamFan503 wrote:
Not sure that necessarily translates. You still have to devote picks on the players to make it happen. But if you can protect the QB, even decent receivers can shake their defenders. We've seen what happens when you make tommi go fetal. That "up tempo" offense dies on the vine. The right personnel can be on the line or at skill positions. A strong case can be made that we have had neither in recent years. Hopefully now we have both. Wouldn't THAT be cool if we're all not just being myopic and we actually DO have a blend of both now.

If you go back to the start of this conversation you'll find that the difference in opinion has to do with whether you need special players to run an uptempo innovative offense. I think you need a good O-line for every good offense so that wouldn't fit the criteria would it.

With the new additions to our O-line we all expect a much improved O-line. That would not require Schotty to step up with an offense that can really utilize all our new weapons . Only the influx of these "special" players like Austin and Cook would require that.

True?

 

[Faceplant]

As far as getting pressure on Tommy the tool tickler. Go back and watch the London game (if u can stomach it). Every time we brought blitz or extra pressure, those pricks had the PERFECT call for it. Literally..... EVERY TIME!!! I posted in another thread a while back that I am pretty sure those pieces of shit could have dropped 80 on the Rams that day if they had wanted to. They clearly knew what was coming all day long. They don't call em the cheatriots for nuthin.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Ram Quixote]

RamFan503 wrote:
Not sure that necessarily translates. You still have to devote picks on the players to make it happen. But if you can protect the QB, even decent receivers can shake their defenders. We've seen what happens when you make tommi go fetal. That "up tempo" offense dies on the vine. The right personnel can be on the line or at skill positions. A strong case can be made that we have had neither in recent years. Hopefully now we have both. Wouldn't THAT be cool if we're all not just being myopic and we actually DO have a blend of both now.

If you go back to the start of this conversation you'll find that the difference in opinion has to do with whether you need special players to run an uptempo innovative offense. I think you need a good O-line for every good offense so that wouldn't fit the criteria would it.

With the new additions to our O-line we all expect a much improved O-line. That would not require Schotty to step up with an offense that can really utilize all our new weapons . Only the influx of these "special" players like Austin and Cook would require that.

True?

I believe 503's point is that NE doesn't have great receivers (outside of the mismatch TEs), but the Oline offers even average receivers time to get open. They are able to run uptempo because of their Oline, not their skill players.

 

[albefree69]

Ram Quixote interpreted:
I believe 503's point is that NE doesn't have great receivers (outside of the mismatch TEs), but the Oline offers even average receivers time to get open. They are able to run uptempo because of their Oline, not their skill players.

Maybe, but I don't see the connection between an up tempo (read no huddle) offense and a good O-line. In fact, wouldn't running a no huddle tend to mask deficiencies in your O-line?

Having success with only average WRs and RBs would make my original theory look more plausible. So I like that part. :yeh:

 

[jap]

An exciting read after a nice nap but it all comes down to Schotty and Sam stepping up their games. I'm more worried about Schotty than I am about Sam. Has Schotty ever had an innovative up tempo awesome offense?

I think a parallel question would be, "has he had the personnel to run one?"

Exactly!!! You can't be creative with marginal talent.

 

[jap]

In addition to what I said in my post above I'd just like to add a few more tidbits.

The Cheatriots O-line has always benefited from the stupidity of the opposition. I will never understand why teams (including the Rams last year) think they can sit back with an extra defender and stop the onslaught. Their O-line was not especially dominant as proven by their performance against the Giants. The same team BTW that showed the world how to beat them.

As far as I'm concerned, the Rams coaches were totally responsible for the debacle in England last year. Had we unleashed our NFL leading sack meisters on them I think the game would have been completely different. We might not have won but I don't think it would have been nearly as embarrassing.

. . . and we might even have made Tommy Boy cry.

 

[-X-]

In addition to what I said in my post above I'd just like to add a few more tidbits.

The Cheatriots O-line has always benefited from the stupidity of the opposition. I will never understand why teams (including the Rams last year) think they can sit back with an extra defender and stop the onslaught. Their O-line was not especially dominant as proven by their performance against the Giants. The same team BTW that showed the world how to beat them.

As far as I'm concerned, the Rams coaches were totally responsible for the debacle in England last year. Had we unleashed our NFL leading sack meisters on them I think the game would have been completely different. We might not have won but I don't think it would have been nearly as embarrassing.

It can't be that simple, can it? I mean, wouldn't it make more sense to say that the Patriots had the benefit of running the same system for 12 years (even with different coordinators) against the Rams' defense that was running its system for the first time? I'm with you on the idea that we should have brought the house more often, but I'm telling you this (and I HATE Brady) ... he can pick a team apart - surgically - if he gets one-on-one matchups and even moderate protection. As good as our D-line was last year, they weren't anywhere near as good as the Giants' D-line was in those two Superbowls.

Aside from the short scores and 1-yard TD runs, Brady didn't really get over the top on us that much. He threw exactly 5 deep passes in that game and completed two for 44 yards and a score. He was basically just picking us apart in that game and taking advantage of our youth and inexperience on D. It pains me to say that - it really does - but it's true.

Here's what happened when we showed blitz and brought more than 4 rushers, btw.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ1t-9uCRYw[/youtube]

 

[albefree69]

X delivering the coup de grace:
It can't be that simple, can it? I mean, wouldn't it make more sense to say that the Patriots had the benefit of running the same system for 12 years (even with different coordinators) against the Rams' defense that was running its system for the first time? I'm with you on the idea that we should have brought the house more often, but I'm telling you this (and I HATE Brady) ... he can pick a team apart - surgically - if he gets one-on-one matchups and even moderate protection. As good as our D-line was last year, they weren't anywhere near as good as the Giants' D-line was in those two Superbowls.

Aside from the short scores and 1-yard TD runs, Brady didn't really get over the top on us that much. He threw exactly 5 deep passes in that game and completed two for 44 yards and a score. He was basically just picking us apart in that game and taking advantage of our youth and inexperience on D. It pains me to say that - it really does - but it's true.

Here's what happened when we showed blitz and brought more than 4 rushers, btw.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ1t-9uCRYw[/youtube]

That wasn't pretty was it? Notice who was the last line of defense and as usual, fashionably late to the party? Dahl. That was a really badly conceived blitz. I'm not sure if it even was a blitz. What kind of D was that anyway? It took me like 20 viewings before I could get a good picture of what was going on and maybe I got it wrong but it certainly didn't look like they were playing man coverage to me. Can you play zone coverage on a blitz? Sheesh! It looked like Jenkins had him short and Dahl had him deep in a zone. That's exactly the kind of defense I was railing against. You can't sit back in a zone defense against Brady and expect to survive. Brady wasn't even hurried. Man coverage and blitz with most of the rest with a spy in the middle.

I agree with the stuff in blue but that was exactly the wrong defense to play against the them. Sure, you 'll get burned occasionally but if you rattle Brady early you have a chance. That video made my point IMO.

You're probably right our inexperience being the main culprit and maybe they didn't have enough time to prepare with all the travel but that was pathetic. And a badly designed defensive strategy too.

 

[-X-]

That's sort of an amoeba defense. Lotta movement pre-snap to disguise what you're doing and not give away your coverage. But they had a better offensive play called in that situation. I agree that the defensive playcalling was below par, and I'd rank it over the inexperience and youth on the team. I was kinda screaming during that game for some more interior push, but you can't will that stuff to happen.

Basically, I think, that's the reason why Blake was shown the door.
That, and (by all accounts) the fact that he was a douche bag.

 

[RamFan503]

I believe 503's point is that NE doesn't have great receivers (outside of the mismatch TEs), but the Oline offers even average receivers time to get open. They are able to run uptempo because of their Oline, not their skill players.

Pretty much.

 

[RamFan503]

Ram Quixote interpreted:
I believe 503's point is that NE doesn't have great receivers (outside of the mismatch TEs), but the Oline offers even average receivers time to get open. They are able to run uptempo because of their Oline, not their skill players.

Maybe, but I don't see the connection between an up tempo (read no huddle) offense and a good O-line. In fact, wouldn't running a no huddle tend to mask deficiencies in your O-line?

Having success with only average WRs and RBs would make my original theory look more plausible. So I like that part. :yeh:

I'm not sure that up tempo means no huddle either. Up tempo means spread it around and move the ball in big chunks. Now granted I generally changed the channel if I saw the patsies were playing but I don't recall them going no huddle very often. Instead, they kept tommi upright so he could pick the open receiver or allow the TE to break free. The up tempo offense was allowed to succeed not just because they had some amazing scheming but because they had a good QB with his eyes down field. Their game plan has been good in most games. I'll give you that. But we've seen it totally foiled when that protection breaks down. Without that time in the pocket, there has been little accomplished by game time adjustments. Why? Probably mediocre talent at skill positions.

 

[albefree69]

RamFan503 added:

I'm not sure that up tempo means no huddle either. Up tempo means spread it around and move the ball in big chunks. Now granted I generally changed the channel if I saw the patsies were playing but I don't recall them going no huddle very often. Instead, they kept tommi upright so he could pick the open receiver or allow the TE to break free. The up tempo offense was allowed to succeed not just because they had some amazing scheming but because they had a good QB with his eyes down field. Their game plan has been good in most games. I'll give you that. But we've seen it totally foiled when that protection breaks down. Without that time in the pocket, there has been little accomplished by game time adjustments. Why? Probably mediocre talent at skill positions.

Yeah, I didn't word that very well. I was, for the most part, talking about no huddle with the other stuff you talked about being a normal side effect of that. With very little rest between plays in the no huddle you're pretty much forced to spread it around.

As for the O-line, the conversation between X and myself concerned whether Schotty had ever had the plethora of weapons needed to demonstrate his ability to answer this question I posed:

"Has Schotty ever had an innovative up tempo awesome offense?"

X's response was:

"has he had the personnel to run one?"

So with that in mind I posited the view point that I didn't think you needed special weapons to have that type of offense. Whereupon X asked for an example and I answered him with the Cheatriots.

Determining the quality of the O-lines he's had in the past would not be possible because while one teams O-line might be top notch for the offense the're running, it might be crappy when trying to run Belicheat's offense. Who could make the point either way without actually trying it in real life?

The Cheatriots had a good O-line but was it great? It certainly didn't show up in their run blocking. It also failed miserably against the Giants in the SB. I'm pretty sure that Schotty has had a good O-line at some point in his career.

Since this whole conversation started with my worries about Schotty being able to make use of all our new weapons I think the answer to X's question should revolve around that issue. I think that when looking at the Cheatriots it's pretty plain to see that they didn't have any special weapons ouside of Brady. Remember that we're including the time period before they got Gronk and Hernandez. Brady is huge of course but we might have our own budding star in Sam. Still, I don't think there is an answer to X's question. There's just the discussion that it generates. :yeh:

 

[Ram_of_Old]

I am stoked for the season, but we need to be realistic. The Rams are a season away from contending IMHO.

 

[-X-]

I am stoked for the season, but we need to be realistic. The Rams are a season away from contending IMHO.

 

[RamFan503]

As for the O-line, the conversation between X and myself concerned whether Schotty had ever had the plethora of weapons needed to demonstrate his ability to answer this question I posed:

"Has Schotty ever had an innovative up tempo awesome offense?"

X's response was:

"has he had the personnel to run one?"

So with that in mind I posited the view point that I didn't think you needed special weapons to have that type of offense. Whereupon X asked for an example and I answered him with the Cheatriots.

Huh. And here I thought O-linemen were included in personnel. Um... my bad? :huhidk:

 

[albefree69]

RamFan503 still young and learning:

Huh. And here I thought O-linemen were included in personnel. Um... my bad? :huhidk:

It's OK but learn from your mistakes. That's the important thing. :whome?:

In the context of our discussion I think personnel was another way of saying weapons.

 

[kurtfaulk]

RamFan503 added:

I'm not sure that up tempo means no huddle either. Up tempo means spread it around and move the ball in big chunks. Now granted I generally changed the channel if I saw the patsies were playing but I don't recall them going no huddle very often. Instead, they kept tommi upright so he could pick the open receiver or allow the TE to break free. The up tempo offense was allowed to succeed not just because they had some amazing scheming but because they had a good QB with his eyes down field. Their game plan has been good in most games. I'll give you that. But we've seen it totally foiled when that protection breaks down. Without that time in the pocket, there has been little accomplished by game time adjustments. Why? Probably mediocre talent at skill positions.

Yeah, I didn't word that very well. I was, for the most part, talking about no huddle with the other stuff you talked about being a normal side effect of that. With very little rest between plays in the no huddle you're pretty much forced to spread it around.

As for the O-line, the conversation between X and myself concerned whether Schotty had ever had the plethora of weapons needed to demonstrate his ability to answer this question I posed:

"Has Schotty ever had an innovative up tempo awesome offense?"

X's response was:

"has he had the personnel to run one?"

So with that in mind I posited the view point that I didn't think you needed special weapons to have that type of offense. Whereupon X asked for an example and I answered him with the Cheatriots.

Determining the quality of the O-lines he's had in the past would not be possible because while one teams O-line might be top notch for the offense the're running, it might be crappy when trying to run Belicheat's offense. Who could make the point either way without actually trying it in real life?

The Cheatriots had a good O-line but was it great? It certainly didn't show up in their run blocking. It also failed miserably against the Giants in the SB. I'm pretty sure that Schotty has had a good O-line at some point in his career.

Since this whole conversation started with my worries about Schotty being able to make use of all our new weapons I think the answer to X's question should revolve around that issue. I think that when looking at the Cheatriots it's pretty plain to see that they didn't have any special weapons ouside of Brady. Remember that we're including the time period before they got Gronk and Hernandez. Brady is huge of course but we might have our own budding star in Sam. Still, I don't think there is an answer to X's question. There's just the discussion that it generates. :yeh:

I'm not sure if you have watched many patriots games or highlights but brady pretty much has an eternity to stand in the pocket and find the open man. That means he has always had a great pass blocking oline. Whenever he feels sustained pressure he turns into a mark sanchez type qb.

.

 

[albefree69]

kurtfaulk chiming in with a personally observed nugget:

I'm not sure if you have watched many patriots games or highlights but brady pretty much has an eternity to stand in the pocket and find the open man. That means he has always had a great pass blocking oline. Whenever he feels sustained pressure he turns into a mark sanchez type qb.

Living in NH I've seen a bunch. As I've said somewhere else, the zone defense with the extra defender is almost universally used to defend against Brady. That's counter intuitive to me because it almost never works unless your D-line can can get penetration without help and your DBs are great. As in the Cardinals vs Cheatriot game last year.

It's not a recipe for success on a regular basis. I'm not saying the O-line isn't good cause it is and must be for their continued success. I'm saying it isn't great. I think their offense would be just as good with any of the top 40% O-lines in the NFL.