Perception and prevention: how the Rams play defense against the best passers in the NFL
This isn't going to be an incredibly long post, but it should be enough to get a discussion going about how we have play defense against the best teams and, more importantly, how we need to play them in the future to win. At the core of this is a simple question: what is the best way to limit effective, efficient offenses that move the ball as well as anyone in the NFL?
Yesterday's defensive approach reminded me of a game we played last year against a very talented quarterback. And yet in these two games, the opposing offenses did exactly what has frustrated so many Rams fans looking for deep passes and sideline catches when we have the ball: dink and dunk.
In late October of last year, the Rams hosted the Indianapolis Colts in the midst of a six-game losing streak. The Spagnuolo-led era had gotten off to a horrendous start, going from Bulger to Boller and back to Bulger (in quarterback terms, that's going from bad to worse to "shoot me where it hurts the most"). Like yesterday's game, it was a contest in which the Rams were horribly outmatched, although the 2010 Rams would likely mop the floor with last year's version. Still, competition with any team is never out of the question in the NFL. Except for that game.
Peyton went 7 of 10 in the first quarter throwing two TDs, and coasting the rest of the way. He wasn't sacked. He averaged just 6.9 yards per attempt. It was as cool and consistent a performance you can get out of an offense when the longest pass you get is a 27-yard strike to TE Dallas Clark (conversely, the Bulger hit Donnie Avery out of the gate on a 50-yard flea flicker). After the game, Colts HC Jim Caldwell said this of Peyton Manning:
He functions pretty well within the system. He does a great job leading our team and being a field general. I don't think he reached 300 yards, but nevertheless he was very effective.
And that right there said it all. Peyton Manning doesn't give a shit about 300 yards or this many TDs. He wants to win, and the 42-6 soulpoking he handed down that day was a great victory by any measure.
Yesterday, Matt Ryan flipped the ball all over the field to any and everyone willing to sit in the many holes available in the middle of the Rams' defense. Seven different receivers had a reception of at least 12 yards. Matt Ryan threw four more times than Peyton did more than a year ago, but averaged just 6.5 yards per attempt. In that Colts game, Peyton connected three times with TE Gijon Robinson for 38 yards. Ryan introduced Rams fans to Justin Peelle to the tune of two catches including a momentum changing touchdown near the end of the third quarter. And in case you're wondering how opposing top WRs did in those two games? Reggie Wayne had seven catches to Roddy White's nine, both for just 83 yards (though Reggie did nab a TD).
The bottom line is this. When the Spagnuolo Rams face a talented, diversified passing attack led by a skilled quarterback who is more concerned with where to attack the Rams defense than who to attack them with (see: avoiding taking advantage of the Roddy White-Jerome Murphy matchup when Bartell went down), our gameplan is simple: rush four, drop the rest and hope for turnovers.
And I can see why that makes sense on its face for now. We blitzed Matty Ice a couple times yesterday, and he just threw over and around the pressure. To be fair, we have to credit Atlanta's O-line - they picked up every blitz but one, by my count, flawlessly. So you rush four to keep defenders behind the receivers. And you keep a couple deep to prevent White or Wayne from breaking the game open. But I'll quote the former President Woodrow Wilson, who though flawed will always hold a place in my heart for having the balls to buck the rising popular sentiment and veto Volstead (although it still passed), in saying:
I would rather fail in a cause that will ultimately triumph than to triumph in a cause that will ultimately fail.
So I ask you, how much risk can the Rams afford to take defensively against the better teams in the NFL in 2011? With an improved pass rush, the equation changes fundamentally. But I think to expect a single rookie addition at either tackle or end to complete the upheaval of the defensive line is asking for a lot. Without a rush, how do we attack quarterbacks and the passing attacks they spearhead? What parts of the field do you leave open to QBs like Peyton Manning and Matt Ryan? Do you take a "live by the sword, die by the sword" approach? The Pats did last night, giving up 4 TDs to Peyton and Co., but forcing three picks as well. Or do we continue to play conservative defense, preventing gamebreakers while allowing huge pockets underneath?
There will never be a right answer, but looking at how easy it was for Matt Ryan yesterday, I can't help but ask the question.
18 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
First off, we are almost the league leader in sacks
We have a great rush. The problem is our outside linebackers. We need faster guys who excell in pass coverage, thats where we get taken advantage of alot. If those outside holes can get closed, that’d do wonders.
It depends
Is the defense mentality to stop them, or to get the ball back?
Without a great offense, it’s often for us “just hold them to three, or stop them and let us take more time off the clock (if we are winning)”.
We always want a takeaway, sure, but that’s less because we want the offense to score, because odds are they probably won’t, and more because the defense needs a break or the opponent has too much momentum.
I think aggressive defense is all about takeaways. You can have all the sacks you want, but at the end of the day, if you can’t stop the offense from converting on 3rd and whatever, you lost that side of the game.
With this offense, the more chances they have, the better.
Sam Bradford drops back, sees Laurent Robinson in the open, and he completes the pass for a gain of 28! Oh- Wait, looks like a holding penalty is going to call this one back...(Oh wait; Barron's gone, ignore that last sentence).
I say play aggressive
Rams were not expected to compete this year so why not go for it in the close games?
Were building a mentality for the future
for once guys have more experience and we add a couple more pieces.
I think it is much simpler than that...
… The Falcons did do a good job blocking up our defensive blitzes and the quick passing game nullified what they couldnt block.
But that is the difference between a team that has played together under the same system for 3 years with the same guys…and a team that has played under the same system for 2 years, but even out of those, many of the Rams are still rookies.
Matt Ryan knows where Tony G is going to be and roddy white and mike jenkins and their offensive line has blocked together for many years also. Bradford has 9 games playing with receivers that have played for 2 years behind an offensive line that is starting a rookie and a 2nd year at the tackle positions.
Defensively, our collective experience is just as bad obviously.
I think we have to do a better job of disguising our approach.
…There was at least a couple of times that the cornerback at the top played off the reciever to prepare to blitz. Matt Ryan is very quick at analyzing this and right away knew that either Roddy White or Michael Jenkins would be the hot route. He burned us both times. And the funny thing is, he paused after he saw the corner move into blitz position and we made no adjustments.
I was impressed with the Falcons offensive line. Our D line struggled all day to get penetration. I don’t know if we changed our approach because I was expecting us to put pressure on Ryan all day.
I'm suffering from an extreme case of laurinaitis!
Yeah I think this is right on the money.
Whatever the gameplan for the Dline was did not work at all. I am kindof wondering if they just had an off day. Their tackling was horrendous!
In fact, this game would have been a complete blowout if Fletcher, Bartel and company hadnt manned up and wrapped up Turner. The numbers probably dont show it, but our secondary played outstanding considering the circumstances ( No pressure up front, Roddy White, Tony Gonzales and having to come up and make big play saving tackles on Turner)
is it just me
or is Fletcher a good surprise. I think the kid has some solid potential. He is so young but he is already doing a good job holding his own against some really legit guys. I really didn’t think we would get as much out of him as quickly as we have.. if ever.
Me either, especially after I thought Tye Hill was going to be the Rams bigtime corner...
I think the Rams are as good as anybody at corner. I like how Bartel basically told Roddy White where he could shove his 100 yard receiving streak on the very first pass play of the game. White didnt get 100 yards and half of the yards he did get were when Ron left the game. I think Fletcher is picking up lots from this guy, especially his attitude.
Bartell had me
when he went out with a bruised hamstring right after straining his neck and still made plays a few games back…. heart of a champion right there… he was not going to die.
Check this out
Steven Jackson owners should be ticked. The Rams were seventh in the league with 3.7 red zone possessions per game heading into the Falcons game, when they added two more. Yet Jackson has three runs all year from inside the five. That’s tied for 41st in football. Pierre Thomas has more! Sunday, game on the line, 2nd-and-goal from the 2-yard line and the Rams put Jackson offset so he can’t run and use him as a blocker on a rollout. One play later, Sam Bradford throws a pick on a shovel pass (to the fullback). How can a team with such a paucity of skill talent so poorly leverage their best player?
by Smoooth Criminal on Nov 22, 2010 3:51 PM CST reply actions
I should add
That I don’t disagree with the play call in that situation. It’s just pathetic that we don’t/can’t run the ball in the red zone.
by Smoooth Criminal on Nov 22, 2010 3:53 PM CST up reply actions
If the Rams offense is playing well
then I don’t mind a passive approach from the defense. But if the offense is struggling they need to be more aggressive to help the offense with better field position.
by Smoooth Criminal on Nov 22, 2010 4:03 PM CST reply actions
I think better disguising is good, and
changing where the blitzing players are coming from. Throw in lots of wrinkles. Not just Lbackers but a corner blitz here and there, bring up a safety, drop a backer, mix it up a lot
St Louis Rams team psychic advisor
I thought out defensive backfield
played too soft in coverage most of the game. When the opponent is 3rd and 6 the CBs shouldn’t be playing 8 yards off the WRs. Ryan saw it on one play, made a motion with his arm to the WR, the receiver ran a slant and had an easy first down. I know that’s the coach calling the defense, but it just doesn’t make any sense. Why don’t we contest more of those 3rd down throws?
Speaking of 3rd down, one big difference in strategy deals with 3rd down. When Atlanta was 3rd and 11, the receivers ran 12 yard routes. When we were 3rd and 11, our receivers ran 5 yard routes. You would think by now our OC would have figured out that we aren’t going to gets lots of yards after the catch, so he needs to call routes that get to the first down marker. Yet we just keep running routes well short of the marker and we have to punt.
lol... it wouldn't be funny if it wasn't true
but now that you mention it we DO run 5yrd routes on third down…. ALOT actually… i have never really thought about that….

by 


























