Rams v. Giants grades
Over the next couple games, I'm going to start a college football player watch series (which you can get a jump on by checking out our SBNation partner Mocking the Draft) to look at the players who will come out in the first three rounds or so of the '09 NFL draft. If (or what's looking more and more like when) Scott Linehan is let go, the Draft will coincide with a new head coach's tenure which should provide an early assessment of where the Rams are going.
With that in mind, a series that gives out grades to the positional groups might kickstart some discussion on where and when we need to draft.
Grades after the fold.
QB: C-
Bulger showed some flashes of the quick strike pass that has been so effective over the last couple years, whether it was hitting Torry on the short slant or the drop screen that saw Jackson haul in 7 catches yesterday. His problem seems to stem from the issues with the O-line. Without having the confidence that he has the time to checkdown multiple receivers and exploit passing lanes, he seemed to force a couple shorter options because they develop quicker. My reasoning for the C- was that he lacked the accuracy we've gotten accustomed to. He overthrew Dane Looker when he was wide open in the 4th quarter, he threw behind McMichael twice (by my count) which prevented him from turning and heading upfield, and the placement on a couple screens was a bit off.
HB: C+
Again, O-line issues affect the grade. Steven didn't have many holes to deal with, and playing from behind the entire game limited him to just 13 carries. Still, his change of direction seemed awkward. I don't remember if it was Aikman or Buck who mentioned that it might have been his shoes and some new cleats, or something to that effect, but the most obvious example was when he fell on that early run with a ton of field ahead of him. The low grade comes from Jackson's inability to show his talent (power or agility) on any other play, really.
WR: B
I might catch some heat for this, but with the secondary the Giants have, I thought the wide receivers and McMichael did a good job of giving Bulger some options. Dane Looker looked competent, and Holt reminded us of his capabilities on the short slant and the touchdown reception. Hopefully over the next couple games before Bennett gets back, we'll see Keenan Burton and Donnie Avery involved more.
O-line: D-
A pathetic grade for failing to block in either attack: running or passing. Six sacks in the game, and four in just the first half, against a Giants team that was without Osi Umenyiora is pathetic. While Jackson only had 13 rushing attempts, rushing lanes were non-existent. The only reason why it wasn't an F was because they showed flashes of pass protection in the second half. Hopefully they can build on that second half going into the divisional opener next week at Seattle.
D-line: B-
A decent effort by the D-line, I thought. A sack each for Chris Long and Victor Adeyanju without Leonard Little and the line did a decent job against the rush. The lack of consistent penetration meant problems. Too often, Eli Manning had all day to throw, which allowed him to let the downfield routes develop so he could deal with the misplays in the secondary. Without quality tackling from the LB and S positions, the line could have stepped up against the run to make the plays, but it just didn't happen. Nevertheless, Brandon Jacobs had 93 yards only because he broke off two runs of 30 and 28 yards, carving up the linebackers. Aside from those two runs, he only had 35 yards. Adding Leonard Little to this mix should make for an interesting battle in the trenches next week when Seattle has the ball.
LB: D
Poor tackling on the run (although the trio of Brandon Jacobs, Derrick Ward and Ahmad Bradshaw can be as punishing as any running corps in the league) and a lack of presence in the middle characterized the defense yesterday. Witherspoon and Tinoisamoa combined for 12 tackles, but too often they were deep into the field and allowed the runner to use his body on the tackler, not the other way around. This group has to minimize the big running play. Consider this: Jacobs had 3 rushes for at least 10 yards, Derrick Ward had 4, and Ahmad Bradshaw had 2. Yes, you can attribute some of that to the D-line, but the linebackers have to take the majority of that blame.
CB/S: F
This was tough to watch. Eli went 20/29 using Amani Toomer to play with coverage. I give them an F for two reasons: no interceptions, and Domenik Hixon catching 3 balls for 60 yards. We saw the same problem with Philadelphia with 3rd-level targets and below. The Rams, conversely, haven't been able to use a 3rd passing option effectively. Against the Eagles, McMichael caught 5 balls, and Jackson and Dante Hall caught 3. Yesterday, Holt caught 6, Jackson hauled in 7 receptions, with Looker, McMichael and Hall each catching 2 combining for just 66 yards on those 6 catches. But back to the coverage. It's just piss poor. Eli was just tossing balls at them, and too often our secondary was taking horrible angles. I don't know if this can be improved on much this season, but maybe with better pressure at the line and an increased usage of the blitz would certainly help. If you're looking at pressure to make your coverage manageable, then you already have problems. This group has a ton.
ST: A-
Josh Brown and Donnie Jones were great yesterday. Brown hit a pair of 50+ FG's and Jones was stellar punting 6 times averaging more than 50 yards per punt. The reason they don't get a full 'A' is return duty. Dante Hall showed horrible return vision. The days when he could get by on acceleration and agility are over. Donnie Avery got his first return yesterday (and hopefully that should increase with time), but Hall returned 6 kickoffs averaging 18 yds/return and returned the Giants' lone punt for 7 yards.
Overall: D+
The problems are too significant for this team. As we saw last year, without an effective O-line, it's near impossible to get your offense going. So far, the Rams have 367 yards of total offense in two games. McNabb passed for 361 in the first. On the other side of the ball, we've given up 635 passing yards in two games. We're making it very, very hard on ourselves to perform to an acceptable standard.
0 recs |
22 comments
Comments
I’d have to drop the O line to an F, if the score was closer you could make the case for late protection, but that was garbage time pure and simple.
By the same token I’d probably bump up the QB a half grade. That throw to Dane should have been caught, the play was to the other side, but Bulger adjusted to the open field to avoid 2 defenders. Looker did pick it up, but not in time. If he spent more time getting reps with the first team, who knows. I’m fairly certain Bruce would have got that (4 catches for 153 yards vs Seattle). But without the switch, likely interception.
No grade for Coaching?
F stands for Foregone conclusion.
by mpire on Sep 15, 2008 7:37 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I would agree that Coaching needs to be graded
and I give Lenihan an “F” for that horrible acting performance at the post game conference…NOW he shows us his righteous anger…where was that fire, say, the last 17 games??? All you had to do was look across the field and see Lenihan’s alter ego to see how lost this team is…Tom Coughlin wouldn’t have put up with this shit…if you all read Van’s interview with Big Blue View the other day, he was absolutely correct in picking Coughlin as the one Giant we would like to have on our team. Personally, Coughlin isn’t my kind of guy, but when it comes to running a team, I’d take him in a heartbeat.
Yes, there are countless player related issues with this team, and we have a ways to go, but the right Head Coach would go a long way to putting us back on the road to respectablity.
by tbell61 on Sep 15, 2008 8:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Coaching grade
For me to grade the coaching, I would have to do a TON of research. Formations, schemes, packages, etc. Yes, the, easy answer is an F. But certainly the players deserve most of the blame. If we had the hypothetical ‘greatest coach of all time’, how much would he be able to get out of our O-line or defense? For me, coaching is about getting the maximum talent out of your players while extracting the maximum talent from your players’ potential. Certainly, in these area the coaching staff has not succeeded. But does the results from yesterday’s game warrant an F? Does it receive the same grade as the opening week’s game (which was undoubtedly, the book example for an F)?
by 3k on Sep 15, 2008 8:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a good point
Most of the responsibility for the state of this team could be that of the individuals responsible for the personel decisions. I am not sure how much input Linihan has had on these. I am sure a lot of the bad decisions took place before he even joined the team. Has there been some kind of change in the front office lately, or are the same people who have been running the show for awhile still there?
Much as my intuition tells me that Linihan is a poor coach and deserves a lot of the blame, I have to admit that I am not really sure.
by WestCoastBuc on Sep 15, 2008 9:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Linehan assessment = agreed
A lot of the blame? Definitely. Responsibility always rests with the head coach. Traditional media link: article (here) from St. Louis Dispatch’s Bernie Miklasz.
Blame, IMO, is different than responsibility. Think about teenagers, which is a shameful analogy, but the way we’re playing, I don’t feel that badly about it. When a kid does something, you expect them to take responsibility for it, but so often, the blame rests with the parents. In that respect, I don’t think Linehan is to blame. Traditional media link: article here from St. Louis Dispatch’s Bryan Burwell.
There’s alot of blame that someone is going to have to start taking soon in more than just a rhetorical fashion.
by 3k on Sep 15, 2008 9:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's valid to grade play-calling, game planning, preparation to play, etc
Granted, we don’t know exactly where the responsibilities blur from one to the other, but it’s fair to grade the OC, DC, and HC on the game that was played with the players on the field. Grading talent is another exercise altogether.
For example, the OC might deserve a D+ … he got Bulger into a few more comfortable looks, and got Steven Jackson 20 touches – the bare minimum, IMO. But the team couldn’t sustain a drive to save their lives. No points for the Torry Holt catch, which was blind luck and sheer determination on the part of the receiver.
The DC: D- … they ‘held’ the Giants to 20 points into the late going, but then absolutely folded. It’s questionable whether the fold was a lack of conditioning, talent, or something systemic.
The HC: F+ … simply doesn’t handle adversity. suppressed rage is not a good thing, coach. let it out. take it out on these players (or coaches) who are failing you, before it kills you. (he gets a ‘plus’ for an all-too rare halftime adjustment that actually led to putting points on the board.)
"Attaway to stomp 'em. Stomp the piss out of 'em. Stomp 'em when they're down. Kick 'em and stomp 'em. Attaway to go boys. Pound that old Budweiser into you and go get them tomorrow." -- Joe Schultz
by taiko on Sep 15, 2008 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
To play devil's advocate, though...
OC – Is the inability to sustain drives Al Saunders’ fault? And had the team been able to early on, would Jackson have gotten 25-30 touches?
DC – What if the Giants players have better stamina (if the probem was conditioning)? And if it’s talent, how can you hold a DC accountable?
As for the head coach, I’ll give you the F. For me, the coordinators job is to play that chess games against opposing coordinators to make the most of matchups. Without any offensive line protection, Saunders is going to have to work in some shorter passing routes for receivers besides Holt and Jackson, and to think about working in some 2 TE sets or using a FB better on running plays. Trying to work through the field on these 12-30 yard passing plays requires more time than the line can give.
by 3k on Sep 15, 2008 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It sounds like you're answering your own questions
I agree with you: “coordinators job is to play that chess game with opposing coordinators to make the most of matchups.”
And then you go on to critique the philosophy of play-calling and lack of personnel awareness that led to many an abbreviated trip down the field. Yes, I think you can pin that on the OC. The Giants’ expressed offensive philosophy is to own the clock, and wear down opposing defenses. Instead of playing an intermediate-to-long-strike game that puts your defense back on the field for more punishment far too quickly, the Rams’ OC should have been more patient.
For the DC, the first three quarters were an improvement over last week, but he essentially walked away from the chess table at the end of the game.
"Attaway to stomp 'em. Stomp the piss out of 'em. Stomp 'em when they're down. Kick 'em and stomp 'em. Attaway to go boys. Pound that old Budweiser into you and go get them tomorrow." -- Joe Schultz
by taiko on Sep 15, 2008 1:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But regardless of the criteria you choose...
I’d like to see some sort of coaches grades in these features. Just adds to the fun.
"Attaway to stomp 'em. Stomp the piss out of 'em. Stomp 'em when they're down. Kick 'em and stomp 'em. Attaway to go boys. Pound that old Budweiser into you and go get them tomorrow." -- Joe Schultz
by taiko on Sep 15, 2008 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
^^^^
Looks like someones got a case of the Mondays.
by BLUE_Thru-n-Thru on Sep 15, 2008 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
watch your tone
Blue thru and thru… sounds like a Cowgirls fan. Here’s to Dave Campo…
by 3k on Sep 15, 2008 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
please understand, 3K
this was not a criticism of your grading…frankly, you know more than I do…I just assumed since Bill Coats and Jim Thomas grade the coaching in the Post, that you would do the same…and for what it’s worth, I think your grades are spot on.
Obviously, coaching is a hot button issue for a lot of us Ram fans these days, and my inclination is to grade them (the coaches) down automatically because it seems like this team is never ready to play…in retrospect, that is probably not a fair assessment.
by tbell61 on Sep 15, 2008 9:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Understood
And I’m always open to criticism. I’m just wary of grading the coaches when I don’t feel I have the resources to do it fairly.
But as I said above, the responsibility for the team’s play rests with Linehan and Zygmunt. It depends on who the ownership feels is ultimately responsible for this team and the direction we’re heading.
by 3k on Sep 15, 2008 9:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is hard for me to understand who the overall grade
could be anything better than a D- and some might think that generous. We have scored fewer points than any team in the league (including some who have played just 1 game) and surrendered more than anyone except Detroit. How can that be a D+?
by WestCoastBuc on Sep 15, 2008 8:18 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
rebuttal
WCB,
The grades are based on yesterday’s performance. Total scoring and scoring defense over the first two games were not part of the grading. The Rams scored more points yesterday that 7 other teams. Should I just apportion the grade based on scoring to and give the Rams a C- based on that alone? The grade was based on the overall performance in all player areas in yesterday’s game, not on the cumulative performance over multiple games.
by 3k on Sep 15, 2008 8:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ESPN taking notice of TST
Mike Sando’s NFC West blog on ESPN just linked to this diary here. Much love to Mike, and to the commuters from ESPN, welcome!
by 3k on Sep 15, 2008 9:05 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Non-Rams Fan
Just thought I’d give an objective view point of yesterday’s exhibition in onesidedness. Well, as objective a view a Cowboy fan can offer.
- It’s obvious after yesterday the offensive line needs a swift kick in the butt. Missed assignments are the least of their worries. The center and guards were consistently getting beat and were simply outmatched by a Giants front 4 that is admittedly a little thin in that area. Justin Tuck is a good player but he looked like world beater out there. Whether it’s technique or just a lack of talent, the Rams’ OLine need to get their act together or Bulger will end up in a body cast come mid-season.
- I wholeheartedly agree with 3k. The ‘human joystick’ is a complete joke of a returner. Why he is lining up as receiver on critical third down plays is beyond my comprehension of football knowledge.
- On a positive note, the Rams had very few penalties. The kicker and punter were all-pro. The Rams were in the game at the half.
I was seriously rooting for you guys. I was hoping the Rams would take advantage of slack-jawed Manning’s flashes of boneheadedness.
Good luck to you guys the rest of the season. You always have the draft to look forward to ;)
by BLUE_Thru-n-Thru on Sep 15, 2008 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 




















