Are the Rams better off limiting pressure on McNabb?

by Ryan Van Bibber on Sep 23, 2010 11:34 AM CDT in 2010 St. Louis Rams season

Bradley Fletcher and the St. Louis Rams secondary loves to cover wide receivers, especially with hugs.

After losses to Bruce Gradkowski and Derek Anderson, this week's matchup with Donovan McNabb does not bode well for the St. Louis Rams.

That is not meant to suggest that the Rams defense has not played well; they have played very well, especially considering the lack of assistance they've received from the offense, where the team's real problems seem to be...again. Nevertheless, the thought of facing a team that's been able to average more than 400 passing yards in two games does suggest matchup problems for the Rams. Last week, the defensive line never got much pressure on Oakland's QB in the second half.

Matchup data this week suggests a lack of pressure from the line might not be such a bad thing for the Rams this week. Football Outsiders' week 3 Number Crunching post at ESPN (Behind the Insider wall) mentions this tidbit about the Rams matchup with McNabb:

In 2009, McNabb was the second-best quarterback in the league when pressured, behind only Aaron Rodgers, while the Rams had the league's 30th-ranked defense against quarterbacks under pressure.

With a Washington team struggling to run the ball, sitting back in tight coverage might be a useful tactic for the Rams defense. So far, the Rams' secondary has been one of the team's strongest units. The Rams pass defense has a -8.4 percent DVOA, thanks in large part to the strong play of starting corners Bradley Fletcher and Ron Bartell as well as FS Oshiomogho Atogwe and SS Craig Dahl. There are injury concerns this week around the two starting safeties, but Atogwe seems likely to play and Dahl passed his first post-concussion test.

Hopefully, they'll have nickel corners Justin King and Kevin Dockery this week as well.

Pulling back from generating pressure on the QB, might also help the Rams in smothering TE Chris Cooley who has 275 yards and 2 TDs in 4 career games against the Rams. Cooley has 144 yards and TD in two games this season.

If the Rams can lock down Cooley and Washington's receivers in coverage, it should force Washington to run the ball more, something they've struggled with.

If the Rams offense can score some points...well, who knows what might happen.

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

just win

Win baby, win.

The only thing comparable to a Rams win is a 49er loss!

by DevsLaRams on Sep 23, 2010 11:52 AM CDT via mobile reply actions

Coverage Sacks

I like this idea, but can our secondary continue to provide consistent coverage to allow a 4 or even 3 man rush get to the quarterback.

In the oakland game, I saw a lack of ability to defend against short and quick passes. Donovan McNabb thrived in a system that gets the ball out and with a shaky offensive line situation (Trent Williams) I would expect WAS to focus on the quick passing game

Our corners need to be able to play a stronger press coverage and knock the timing off for this strategy to pan out.

by JTPirate on Sep 23, 2010 12:20 PM CDT reply actions

I see

if only we hadn’t put so much pressure on the QB last year the D would have been fine.

by WestCoastBuc on Sep 23, 2010 12:25 PM CDT reply actions

I think the numbers are decieving.

Limiting Derek Anderson and Jason Campbell is not all that to gloat about because I think they tend to limit themselves. Now, allowing Bruce Gradkowski to burn us in the second half probably says a lot about the deficeincies in our defense.

I believe if we concentrate on shutting down the passing game, Clinton Portis and Donovan McNabb will run wild on us. We need to keep doing what we are doing, concentrate on stopping the run, disguising the coverage but keeping an eye on Chris Cooley at the same time. He has been a thorn in our side every time we have played the Redskins lately.

by NachoD on Sep 23, 2010 12:36 PM CDT reply actions

Yeah, I'm not entirely buying the conclusion from Schatz either

Sure, we were “the league’s 30th-ranked defense against quarterbacks under pressure”, but where we ranked against QBs not under pressure? I doubt much better.
We saw the BDB (Bend, Don’t Break) defense often last season, and saw it again on Sunday against the Raiders. To be fair, it wasn’t horrible in the second half. Gradkowski only completed 50% of his passes and threw the INT to Jerome Murphy. How much of that can we credit to our defense and how much goes on the shoulders of the Graduate and the Raiders’ receivers? I have a hard time believing McNabb & Co. wouldn’t be able to seriously outplay our defense if we only rush four Rams, especially given how well McNabb played against the Texans last week.

You don't seem to want to accept the fact you're dealing with an expert in guerrilla warfare, with a man who's the best, with guns, with knives, with his bare hands. A man who's been trained to ignore pain, ignore weather, to live off the land, to eat things that would make a billy goat puke. In *St. Louis* his job was to dispose of enemy personnel. To kill! Period! Win by attrition. Well, *Steven Jackson* was the best.

by 3k on Sep 23, 2010 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions

I mostly agree

Cooley must be covered. Now the Rams did decently against a good TE last week but then again, I didn’t think the secondary did that great against the very average Wides they faced last week, either. If I was calling the coverage, I’d have to mix in some blitz packages on McNabb. He’s wiley, but not as moblie as he used to be. I hope they DC was paying attention when the Raiders adjusted and started pitching out because if the Skins get Portis free it’ll be hell.

by CoachConnors on Sep 23, 2010 12:51 PM CDT up reply actions

DL is not strong enough to get pressure without blitz help

McNabb would be a ble to kick his feet up and just wait till someone got open. Need the blitzes for pressure,

I should be working right now...

by gorams77 on Sep 23, 2010 11:15 PM CDT up reply actions

general predictions

i have done us to win r first two games but am not holding my breath for this one.
thinking a 14 r 17 point loss tbh

by Marty McKeown on Sep 23, 2010 12:44 PM CDT reply actions

Why the dink and dunk passing attack? Here is the answer.

Attributes of the Coryell offense (Wikipedia)

The Coryell offense is a combination of deep and mid range passing and power running.3The offense relies on getting all five receivers out into patterns that combined stretched the field, setting up defensive backs with route technique and the Quarterback throwing to a spot on time where the receiver can catch and turn up field. Pass protection is critical to success because at least two of the five receivers will run a deep in, skinny post, comeback, speed out, or shallow cross.

Overall the goal of the Coryell offense is to have at least two downfield, fast wide receivers who adjust to the deep pass very well, combined with a sturdy pocket quarterback with a strong arm. The Coryell offense uses three key weapons. The first is a strong inside running game, the second is its ability to strike deep with two or more receivers on any play, and the third is to not only use those two attack in cooperation with each other, but to include a great deal of mid-range passing to a TE, WR, or back.

The Coryell offense has the ability to both “eat the clock” with the ground game but also to strike deep and fast without warning. Critics argue that the Coryell offense is ill-suited for coming from behind, as the deep pass attack will be predictable and therefore easy to stop. However, the fact that the offense is structured around a power running game and tall WRs who can win jump balls and have some breakaway speed make this contention hard to support. This offense is built not only for deep passing but also to defeat short yardage and red zone situations. When evenly matched, the Coryell offense can produce big drives and big scoring efficiently. If teams sit back to cover the deep field, offenses should be able to run the ball on them.

If the defense tightens down to stop the run, the offense can go deep.

If a defense hedges its bets by using three-deep setups with an eight-man defense up front, the QB can pick apart the defense with 10-20 yard passes.

by OakCityRam on Sep 23, 2010 1:35 PM CDT reply actions

I'm confused as to what this has to do with the Rams

Are you saying we can’t run this or that we’re trying to run it, just not successfully?

by 3k on Sep 23, 2010 1:41 PM CDT up reply actions

This sounds exactly what they are trying to do. It doesn’t seem to be working so far.

by OakCityRam on Sep 23, 2010 3:46 PM CDT up reply actions

Tough to pull off w/o legit deep threats

Look to Avery’s contribution in the Patriots preseason game. He had a couple deep grabs and was really opening up things for everyone else.

by CoachConnors on Sep 23, 2010 9:35 PM CDT up reply actions

Lay off McNabb? Hmmmm, interesting.

If you think the Rams receiving core was bad, the ‘Skins aren’t in any better condition. Grandpa Galloway, Teeny-tiny Moss, The Don’t Do Ish Brothers – Kelly & Thomas, and Slow Poke Cooley, all along with your no-namers in their first year in DC.

Just don’t let Donovan turn the corner, he might run like Vick did last week.

The ’Skins have an upgraded offense and is a different team from the past two years but If the 0-2 Cowboys could had almost beat them (Hi, Alex), the Rams have a shot.

I think the Skins had a lucky 2 Qtr last week, along with the Texans coming out slow. That game wasn’t as close as it seemed. Rackers miss an easy field goal and gave the ball back in a decent spot.

by Boofer on Sep 23, 2010 1:41 PM CDT reply actions

Long needs to do a better job

of not letting the QB roll out right when under pressure. Keep him in the pocket and we can get to him.

by andyhawk on Sep 23, 2010 9:46 PM CDT reply actions

what the?

It’s real nice that you guys have such a positive attitude in all of this. For me though I have a tendency to call it like I see it. The Rams DL could not do squat against a totally crappy OL of the Raiders. Will they fair better against Wash. NO. Let’s ease off the pressure on McNabb because our secondary is so much better. I don’t think so. Do they even have an INT this year. I do know they have dropped several potential INT’s some of which could have gone for six. A good secondary makes those plays and if they would have we would be 2-0 right now. So excuse me if I don’t have a lot of confidence in this team, yet.

by johnny scuba on Sep 23, 2010 9:53 PM CDT reply actions

Well actually

Yes, the Rams were seriously intruding into the backfield against the Raiders, pressuring the Oak QB into mistakes so bad that he got benched, and the Raiders had to start pitching the ball way out wide instead of running behind the line/between the tackles. At one point, Campbell, an experienced starting QB, simply threw the ball into the ground with no one around him because he was so rattled by the Rams D getting to him. And Jerome Murphy had a nice INT and return.

Yeah they got beat down eventually, but that appeared to be more about being caught off guard on what the Raiders adjustments were rather than simply being dominated on the line. It wasn’t like the Raiders ran it down their throats…more like they ran away from the Rams D line than through it.

by CoachConnors on Sep 24, 2010 12:04 AM CDT up reply actions