What was a bigger problem last year?

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by JayBee:


I mean, I can understand if Alex had Raye his whole career....as Shurmur's better than him. But the guy had McCarthy, Martz and Turner in 3 of the first 4 years of his career. All 3 of SB rings. All 3 have worked with HOF QB's. Yet there are some in here that have the audacity to say that Alex did not benefit from an OC as good as Shurmur? Shurmur is average, luckily he had a pretty talented QB who can make all the throws. They depended on a lot of short passes. Something Alex STRUGGLES AT. Shurmur + Alex would have been a nightmare.

In addition, I've heard from apologists so many times that young QB's need offensive minded head coaches...that defensive minded head coaches are a recipe for disaster...yet all of a sudden the defensive minded HC who won 1 game the year before is HOF material.

It's so funny how subjective people are. I mean, obviously I'm not Alex's biggest supporter, but at least I state reasons why I don't like him as our QB and support my opinions with facts. I mean he was dealt a bad hand and was in a crappy situation. I'm not denying that. But just because he didn't get a fair shake, I must stick with him? The world...and LIFE does not work like that. The 9ers should not be a charity.

Had to laugh at this! You have responded to few arguments against your assertions but feel justified to criticize those who give you answers you don't like without addressing the comments. You lump all pro Smith arguements together so that you can use "silly" arguments to refute reasonable statements.

You feel justified to label coaches good, mediocre, or bad based on minimal information. Spagnola is mediocre at best because he had a bad first year. 'when I point out Walsh's first year as being almost equally as bad, you ignore that and restate your negative opinion.

I pointed out that the offense made progress in every single area...ignored. You just restate how average Shurmer is. Based on what? A year where the offense progressed in every facet. Do you know Shurmer personally that you are able to judge him so easily?

Lastly, the reason I have wanted an offensive minded HC is because you seldom have continuity on offense with a Defensive HC. Now Shurmer is gone and they were lucky enough to bring in McDaniels. Do you think McDaniels will be there long term? The Rams (and Bradford) may be in the same position as the 9ers with revolving door OCs. Not a good thing.

Like I said, there are a lot of parrallels between the 9ers and the Rams. Imagine if Nolan had a Bradford... Maybe you'd be speaking as glowingly of him as you do of Shurmur. Just a thought.

I don't think having a defensive minded HC is bad for a young QB. However, I do believe that a defensive minded HC that meddles with the offense and imposes an archaic run first offense will doom any offense regardless of who the QB is.

The last decade of failure by this team has been pretty much self inflicted. Poor choices in leadership have trickled down and affected every facet of this team from poor draft choices to even worse FA acquisitions.

Hopefully, the new staff can right this ship and get it headed in the right direction. Harbaugh is the first coach in YEARS that I have any kind of faith in to get the job done.

Anyway, bring on the new season!!!

Originally posted by JayBee:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by JayBee:


I mean, I can understand if Alex had Raye his whole career....as Shurmur's better than him. But the guy had McCarthy, Martz and Turner in 3 of the first 4 years of his career. All 3 of SB rings. All 3 have worked with HOF QB's. Yet there are some in here that have the audacity to say that Alex did not benefit from an OC as good as Shurmur? Shurmur is average, luckily he had a pretty talented QB who can make all the throws. They depended on a lot of short passes. Something Alex STRUGGLES AT. Shurmur + Alex would have been a nightmare.

In addition, I've heard from apologists so many times that young QB's need offensive minded head coaches...that defensive minded head coaches are a recipe for disaster...yet all of a sudden the defensive minded HC who won 1 game the year before is HOF material.

It's so funny how subjective people are. I mean, obviously I'm not Alex's biggest supporter, but at least I state reasons why I don't like him as our QB and support my opinions with facts. I mean he was dealt a bad hand and was in a crappy situation. I'm not denying that. But just because he didn't get a fair shake, I must stick with him? The world...and LIFE does not work like that. The 9ers should not be a charity.

Had to laugh at this! You have responded to few arguments against your assertions but feel justified to criticize those who give you answers you don't like without addressing the comments. You lump all pro Smith arguements together so that you can use "silly" arguments to refute reasonable statements.

You feel justified to label coaches good, mediocre, or bad based on minimal information. Spagnola is mediocre at best because he had a bad first year. 'when I point out Walsh's first year as being almost equally as bad, you ignore that and restate your negative opinion.

I pointed out that the offense made progress in every single area...ignored. You just restate how average Shurmer is. Based on what? A year where the offense progressed in every facet. Do you know Shurmer personally that you are able to judge him so easily?

Lastly, the reason I have wanted an offensive minded HC is because you seldom have continuity on offense with a Defensive HC. Now Shurmer is gone and they were lucky enough to bring in McDaniels. Do you think McDaniels will be there long term? The Rams (and Bradford) may be in the same position as the 9ers with revolving door OCs. Not a good thing.

Like I said, there are a lot of parrallels between the 9ers and the Rams. Imagine if Nolan had a Bradford... Maybe you'd be speaking as glowingly of him as you do of Shurmur. Just a thought.

Perhaps. But Nolan made two mistakes from the start that really bothered me (although I'm not sure if he made the decisions on his own), hiring McCarthy as the OC knowing that he was likely to get a HC job soon, and then drafting Smith instead of Rogers. Rogers personality was more NFL ready. Nolan didn't like Rogers free spirit.

Then he compounded the first mistake by hiring Turner, another guy who was likely a HC within a year or two. Which is why I harp about having an offensive mind running the organization.

Originally posted by Wodwo:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:
Once Smith gets benched or injured, which has happened over and over, we will be done with this forever.

Lulz... this has been said so many times now.

haha i know.

I have hope in Kaep.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by JayBee:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by JayBee:

Originally posted by Harbaugh52:

Originally posted by JayBee:
Are people really comparing a QB in his 1st season to a QB in his 6th season? Did I actually read that Danny Amendola is better than anyone on the 9ers roster? Did I read that Spagnola is one of the better HC's in the league and Shurmur is a top OC? Did I just hear that St. Louis had a good O-line? I'm getting a kick out of reading this garbage.

Uh..

Sagnola isnt a bad coach, Shurmur was a great OC last year, St. Louis does have a pretty good O-line.

Shurmur? Great OC?
Spagnola coached a team to a 1-15 record.
The O-line? The same O-line that was decimated by injuries?

It just goes to show you what a competent QB will do to a team. Makes the HC look good. Makes the OC look like a HOFer and the O-line look good. Makes a practice squad receiver all of a sudden a great player with phenomenal hands.

These guys have interesting careers. Shurmer didn't just help Bradford become a good QB, but every category of offense improved under Shurmer. That indicates coaching, not one great player showing his stuff. As for Spagnola, he is a D guy and has a track record of success as a DC. So, they had both areas covered by very competant people. Next season will be interesting as Bradford will have Josh McDaniels as OC. That should still be a good situation.

But I thought QB's required offensive minded head coaches to succeed? Bradford's situation mirrors Alex's situation so perfectly yet the 9ers OC's, HC's, players etc are all garbage and the Rams OC's, HC's, players, etc are top tier. It's just funny how some talk on both sides of their mouth.

We're not going to agree on this so no point discussing this further.

Shurmer is/was the yin to Spags yang. I'm not the poster who called the rest of the team garbage...as a matter of fact I don't recall any postive contributer to the discussions saying such a thing. The comparison parallels Smith's second year when Turner was the OC. If you recall, his rookie year Alex was in and out of the lineup to get him seasoning. Bradford was the annointed one and he started all 16 games. Smith had just turned 20 while Bradford was 23.

While you can say the circustances were similar, they were not the same and I disagree with your take. As to no point discussing this further...that's your option but I notice most people who say that keep posting and carrying on the debate. Look forward to your future posts.

Couple of points about the Rams coaching:

Spagnuolo tutored under Jim Johnson, a strong defensive coach who also understood the importance of having a solid offense as well. He inherited a Ram team that had become comfortable losing. He spent the entire first season changing the chemistry of the team, bringing in rookies to replace vets who were just mailing it in every week.

He also brought Pat Shurmur as OC who had spent 10 years learning from Andy Reid. Shurmur had a number of suitors around the league but chose the Rams and Spagnuolo, in part because he was promised a free hand with the offense. Shurmur set about designing an offense that would work with existing Ram personnel. He had Bulger playing quite well compared to past years. Before he was injured, he had a QBR of 71. (Bradford was 76) His completion percentage was 57%. (Bradford was 60%) The offense with Bulger was decent, not great but much better than the year before. It was the defense that stunk but the 1-15 record gave them Sam Bradford.

The significant thing about the 2009 season was that despite the 1-15 record, pro observers widely noted the change in attitude on the team under Spagnuolo. They played hard but a lack of talent among the vets and a lot of rookies held them back. In 2010, the rookies had a year of experience and the entire team played much better. It wasn't just Bradford that made them a better team.

Some interesting stats comparing 2009 and 2010:
1st downs:
In 2009 the Rams gained 259 1st downs to opponents 333. This with a combination of Bulger and Kyle Boller.

In 2010, Rams gained 292 to opponents 304. The improvement was roughly equal on both sides of the ball.

Ave gain/play 2009 Rams 4.5, opponents 5.9.

In 2010, Rams 4.6, opponents 5.3. The big improvement here was NOT on offense but on defense. Bulger/Boller were only .1 yard/play below the Bradford offense. The defense was where the big improvement came.

Total yards in 2009 Rams; 4470, opponents 5965
In 2010: Rams 4846, opponents 5388

Again, while the offense did improve under Bradford, gaining 376 more yards than 2009, it was the defense that made the greatest improvement giving up 577 FEWER yards than before the year before.

Turnovers were a BIG change where the Rams went from -13 to +5. Bulger/Boller had 12 between them while 3rd string injury replacement Keith Null had 9 by himself. Bradford had 15.

The point here is that while Bradford was clearly an improvement over the 2009 QB committee, there were substantial improvements in just about every other category as well. It wasn't like Sam turned a garbage team into a contender. Bradford got a lot of press but when we blow away the smoke, the defense was where the biggest improvement came about.

So take it for what one might. Bradford had a nice rookie year but when we look at the entire picture, the Ram defense behind Chris Long, James Hall and James Laurinaitis made more of an improvement than the offense behind Sam Bradford.

[ Edited by dj43 on Jul 1, 2011 at 22:27:53 ]

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by JayBee:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by JayBee:

Originally posted by Harbaugh52:

Originally posted by JayBee:
Are people really comparing a QB in his 1st season to a QB in his 6th season? Did I actually read that Danny Amendola is better than anyone on the 9ers roster? Did I read that Spagnola is one of the better HC's in the league and Shurmur is a top OC? Did I just hear that St. Louis had a good O-line? I'm getting a kick out of reading this garbage.

Uh..

Sagnola isnt a bad coach, Shurmur was a great OC last year, St. Louis does have a pretty good O-line.

Shurmur? Great OC?
Spagnola coached a team to a 1-15 record.
The O-line? The same O-line that was decimated by injuries?

It just goes to show you what a competent QB will do to a team. Makes the HC look good. Makes the OC look like a HOFer and the O-line look good. Makes a practice squad receiver all of a sudden a great player with phenomenal hands.

These guys have interesting careers. Shurmer didn't just help Bradford become a good QB, but every category of offense improved under Shurmer. That indicates coaching, not one great player showing his stuff. As for Spagnola, he is a D guy and has a track record of success as a DC. So, they had both areas covered by very competant people. Next season will be interesting as Bradford will have Josh McDaniels as OC. That should still be a good situation.

But I thought QB's required offensive minded head coaches to succeed? Bradford's situation mirrors Alex's situation so perfectly yet the 9ers OC's, HC's, players etc are all garbage and the Rams OC's, HC's, players, etc are top tier. It's just funny how some talk on both sides of their mouth.

We're not going to agree on this so no point discussing this further.

Shurmer is/was the yin to Spags yang. I'm not the poster who called the rest of the team garbage...as a matter of fact I don't recall any postive contributer to the discussions saying such a thing. The comparison parallels Smith's second year when Turner was the OC. If you recall, his rookie year Alex was in and out of the lineup to get him seasoning. Bradford was the annointed one and he started all 16 games. Smith had just turned 20 while Bradford was 23.

While you can say the circustances were similar, they were not the same and I disagree with your take. As to no point discussing this further...that's your option but I notice most people who say that keep posting and carrying on the debate. Look forward to your future posts.

Couple of points about the Rams coaching:

Spagnuolo tutored under Jim Johnson, a strong defensive coach who also understood the importance of having a solid offense as well. He inherited a Ram team that had become comfortable losing. He spent the entire season changing the chemistry of the team, bringing in rookies to replace vets who were just mailing it in every week.

He also brought Pat Shurmur as OC who had spent 10 years learning from Andy Reid. Shurmur had a number of suitors around the league but chose the Rams and Spagnuolo, in part because he was promised a free hand with the offense. Shurmur set about designing an offense that would work with existing Ram personnel. He had Bulger playing quite well compared to past years. Before he was injured, he had a QBR of 71. (Bradford was 76) His completion percentage was 57%. (Bradford was 60%) The offense with Bulger was decent, not great but much better than the year before. It was the defense that stunk but the 1-15 record gave them Sam Bradford.

The significant thing about the 2009 season was that despite the 1-15 record, pro observers widely noted the change in attitude on the team under Spagnuolo. They played hard but a lack of talent among the vets and a lot of rookies held them back. In 2010, the rookies had a year of experience and the entire team played much better. It wasn't just Bradford that made them a better team.

Some interesting stats comparing 2009 and 2010:
1st downs:
In 2009 the Rams gained 259 1st downs to opponents 333. This with a combination of Bulger and Kyle Boller.

In 2010, Rams gained 292 to opponents 304. The improvement was roughly equal on both sides of the ball.

Ave gain/play 2009 Rams 4.5, opponents 5.9.

In 2010, Rams 4.6, opponents 5.3. The big improvement here was NOT on offense but on defense. Bulger/Boller were only .1 yard/play better than the Bradford offense. The defense was where the big improvement came.

Total yards in 2009 Rams; 4470, opponents 5965
In 2010: Rams 4846, opponents 5388

Again, while the offense did improve under Bradford, gaining 376 more yards than 2009, it was the defense that made the greatest improvement giving up 577 FEWER yards than before the year before.

Turnovers were a BIG change where the Rams went from -13 to +5. Bulger/Boller had 12 between them while 3rd string injury replacement Keith Null had 9 by himself. Bradford had 15.

The point here is that while Bradford was clearly an improvement over the 2009 QB committee, there were substantial improvements in just about every other category as well. It wasn't like Sam turned a garbage team into a contender. Bradford got a lot of press but when we blow away the smoke, the defense was where the biggest improvement came about.

So take it for what one might. Bradford had a nice rookie year but when we look at the entire picture, the Ram defense behind Chris Long, James Hall and James Lauinaitis made more of an improvement than the offense behind Sam Bradford.

Thanks DJ, very interesting read!

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by JayBee:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by JayBee:

Originally posted by Harbaugh52:

Originally posted by JayBee:
Are people really comparing a QB in his 1st season to a QB in his 6th season? Did I actually read that Danny Amendola is better than anyone on the 9ers roster? Did I read that Spagnola is one of the better HC's in the league and Shurmur is a top OC? Did I just hear that St. Louis had a good O-line? I'm getting a kick out of reading this garbage.

Uh..

Sagnola isnt a bad coach, Shurmur was a great OC last year, St. Louis does have a pretty good O-line.

Shurmur? Great OC?
Spagnola coached a team to a 1-15 record.
The O-line? The same O-line that was decimated by injuries?

It just goes to show you what a competent QB will do to a team. Makes the HC look good. Makes the OC look like a HOFer and the O-line look good. Makes a practice squad receiver all of a sudden a great player with phenomenal hands.

These guys have interesting careers. Shurmer didn't just help Bradford become a good QB, but every category of offense improved under Shurmer. That indicates coaching, not one great player showing his stuff. As for Spagnola, he is a D guy and has a track record of success as a DC. So, they had both areas covered by very competant people. Next season will be interesting as Bradford will have Josh McDaniels as OC. That should still be a good situation.

But I thought QB's required offensive minded head coaches to succeed? Bradford's situation mirrors Alex's situation so perfectly yet the 9ers OC's, HC's, players etc are all garbage and the Rams OC's, HC's, players, etc are top tier. It's just funny how some talk on both sides of their mouth.

We're not going to agree on this so no point discussing this further.

Shurmer is/was the yin to Spags yang. I'm not the poster who called the rest of the team garbage...as a matter of fact I don't recall any postive contributer to the discussions saying such a thing. The comparison parallels Smith's second year when Turner was the OC. If you recall, his rookie year Alex was in and out of the lineup to get him seasoning. Bradford was the annointed one and he started all 16 games. Smith had just turned 20 while Bradford was 23.

While you can say the circustances were similar, they were not the same and I disagree with your take. As to no point discussing this further...that's your option but I notice most people who say that keep posting and carrying on the debate. Look forward to your future posts.

Couple of points about the Rams coaching:

Spagnuolo tutored under Jim Johnson, a strong defensive coach who also understood the importance of having a solid offense as well. He inherited a Ram team that had become comfortable losing. He spent the entire first season changing the chemistry of the team, bringing in rookies to replace vets who were just mailing it in every week.

He also brought Pat Shurmur as OC who had spent 10 years learning from Andy Reid. Shurmur had a number of suitors around the league but chose the Rams and Spagnuolo, in part because he was promised a free hand with the offense. Shurmur set about designing an offense that would work with existing Ram personnel. He had Bulger playing quite well compared to past years. Before he was injured, he had a QBR of 71. (Bradford was 76) His completion percentage was 57%. (Bradford was 60%) The offense with Bulger was decent, not great but much better than the year before. It was the defense that stunk but the 1-15 record gave them Sam Bradford.

The significant thing about the 2009 season was that despite the 1-15 record, pro observers widely noted the change in attitude on the team under Spagnuolo. They played hard but a lack of talent among the vets and a lot of rookies held them back. In 2010, the rookies had a year of experience and the entire team played much better. It wasn't just Bradford that made them a better team.

Some interesting stats comparing 2009 and 2010:
1st downs:
In 2009 the Rams gained 259 1st downs to opponents 333. This with a combination of Bulger and Kyle Boller.

In 2010, Rams gained 292 to opponents 304. The improvement was roughly equal on both sides of the ball.

Ave gain/play 2009 Rams 4.5, opponents 5.9.

In 2010, Rams 4.6, opponents 5.3. The big improvement here was NOT on offense but on defense. Bulger/Boller were only .1 yard/play better than the Bradford offense. The defense was where the big improvement came.

Total yards in 2009 Rams; 4470, opponents 5965
In 2010: Rams 4846, opponents 5388

Again, while the offense did improve under Bradford, gaining 376 more yards than 2009, it was the defense that made the greatest improvement giving up 577 FEWER yards than before the year before.

Turnovers were a BIG change where the Rams went from -13 to +5. Bulger/Boller had 12 between them while 3rd string injury replacement Keith Null had 9 by himself. Bradford had 15.

The point here is that while Bradford was clearly an improvement over the 2009 QB committee, there were substantial improvements in just about every other category as well. It wasn't like Sam turned a garbage team into a contender. Bradford got a lot of press but when we blow away the smoke, the defense was where the biggest improvement came about.

So take it for what one might. Bradford had a nice rookie year but when we look at the entire picture, the Ram defense behind Chris Long, James Hall and James Laurinaitis made more of an improvement than the offense behind Sam Bradford.

"The point here is that while Bradford was clearly an improvement over the 2009 QB committee, there were substantial improvements in just about every other category as well. It wasn't like Sam turned a garbage team into a contender. Bradford got a lot of press but when we blow away the smoke, the defense was where the biggest improvement came about."

So the Rams team improved because of their vaunted defense. And the offensive improvement was minor and only occured because of the defense and good coaching and little to do with Bradfords ability?

Take your own stats for what they are and try not to justify the obvious increase in offensive production, all things equal, in one year after Bradford was drafted. The team was decimated in 2010 with injuries to WR and OL.

"Some interesting stats comparing 2009 and 2010:
1st downs:
In 2009 the Rams gained 259 1st downs to opponents 333. This with a combination of Bulger and Kyle Boller.

In 2010, Rams gained 292 to opponents 304. The improvement was roughly equal on both sides of the ball.

Ave gain/play 2009 Rams 4.5, opponents 5.9.

In 2010, Rams 4.6, opponents 5.3. The big improvement here was NOT on offense but on defense. Bulger/Boller were only .1 yard/play better than the Bradford offense. The defense was where the big improvement came.

Total yards in 2009 Rams; 4470, opponents 5965
In 2010: Rams 4846, opponents 5388"[/b]

And the reason that STL team was better in 2010 then 2009 is because their defense improved? And the offensive improvement was because of the D?

WOW!

Originally posted by TonyStarks:
coaching wasn't THAT bad.
We lost games by under 10 points against playoff teams.

Our oline was noobish.

it was all-time bad. like, worst ever.

Originally posted by A-R-S:

Originally posted by TonyStarks:
coaching wasn't THAT bad.
We lost games by under 10 points against playoff teams.

Our oline was noobish.

it was all-time bad. like, worst ever.

coaching wasnt that bad...really..really?

DP

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by JayBee:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by JayBee:

Originally posted by Harbaugh52:

Originally posted by JayBee:
Are people really comparing a QB in his 1st season to a QB in his 6th season? Did I actually read that Danny Amendola is better than anyone on the 9ers roster? Did I read that Spagnola is one of the better HC's in the league and Shurmur is a top OC? Did I just hear that St. Louis had a good O-line? I'm getting a kick out of reading this garbage.

Uh..

Sagnola isnt a bad coach, Shurmur was a great OC last year, St. Louis does have a pretty good O-line.

Shurmur? Great OC?
Spagnola coached a team to a 1-15 record.
The O-line? The same O-line that was decimated by injuries?

It just goes to show you what a competent QB will do to a team. Makes the HC look good. Makes the OC look like a HOFer and the O-line look good. Makes a practice squad receiver all of a sudden a great player with phenomenal hands.

These guys have interesting careers. Shurmer didn't just help Bradford become a good QB, but every category of offense improved under Shurmer. That indicates coaching, not one great player showing his stuff. As for Spagnola, he is a D guy and has a track record of success as a DC. So, they had both areas covered by very competant people. Next season will be interesting as Bradford will have Josh McDaniels as OC. That should still be a good situation.

But I thought QB's required offensive minded head coaches to succeed? Bradford's situation mirrors Alex's situation so perfectly yet the 9ers OC's, HC's, players etc are all garbage and the Rams OC's, HC's, players, etc are top tier. It's just funny how some talk on both sides of their mouth.

We're not going to agree on this so no point discussing this further.

Shurmer is/was the yin to Spags yang. I'm not the poster who called the rest of the team garbage...as a matter of fact I don't recall any postive contributer to the discussions saying such a thing. The comparison parallels Smith's second year when Turner was the OC. If you recall, his rookie year Alex was in and out of the lineup to get him seasoning. Bradford was the annointed one and he started all 16 games. Smith had just turned 20 while Bradford was 23.

While you can say the circustances were similar, they were not the same and I disagree with your take. As to no point discussing this further...that's your option but I notice most people who say that keep posting and carrying on the debate. Look forward to your future posts.

Couple of points about the Rams coaching:

Spagnuolo tutored under Jim Johnson, a strong defensive coach who also understood the importance of having a solid offense as well. He inherited a Ram team that had become comfortable losing. He spent the entire first season changing the chemistry of the team, bringing in rookies to replace vets who were just mailing it in every week.

He also brought Pat Shurmur as OC who had spent 10 years learning from Andy Reid. Shurmur had a number of suitors around the league but chose the Rams and Spagnuolo, in part because he was promised a free hand with the offense. Shurmur set about designing an offense that would work with existing Ram personnel. He had Bulger playing quite well compared to past years. Before he was injured, he had a QBR of 71. (Bradford was 76) His completion percentage was 57%. (Bradford was 60%) The offense with Bulger was decent, not great but much better than the year before. It was the defense that stunk but the 1-15 record gave them Sam Bradford.

The significant thing about the 2009 season was that despite the 1-15 record, pro observers widely noted the change in attitude on the team under Spagnuolo. They played hard but a lack of talent among the vets and a lot of rookies held them back. In 2010, the rookies had a year of experience and the entire team played much better. It wasn't just Bradford that made them a better team.

Some interesting stats comparing 2009 and 2010:
1st downs:
In 2009 the Rams gained 259 1st downs to opponents 333. This with a combination of Bulger and Kyle Boller.

In 2010, Rams gained 292 to opponents 304. The improvement was roughly equal on both sides of the ball.

Ave gain/play 2009 Rams 4.5, opponents 5.9.

In 2010, Rams 4.6, opponents 5.3. The big improvement here was NOT on offense but on defense. Bulger/Boller were only .1 yard/play better than the Bradford offense. The defense was where the big improvement came.

Total yards in 2009 Rams; 4470, opponents 5965
In 2010: Rams 4846, opponents 5388

Again, while the offense did improve under Bradford, gaining 376 more yards than 2009, it was the defense that made the greatest improvement giving up 577 FEWER yards than before the year before.

Turnovers were a BIG change where the Rams went from -13 to +5. Bulger/Boller had 12 between them while 3rd string injury replacement Keith Null had 9 by himself. Bradford had 15.

The point here is that while Bradford was clearly an improvement over the 2009 QB committee, there were substantial improvements in just about every other category as well. It wasn't like Sam turned a garbage team into a contender. Bradford got a lot of press but when we blow away the smoke, the defense was where the biggest improvement came about.

So take it for what one might. Bradford had a nice rookie year but when we look at the entire picture, the Ram defense behind Chris Long, James Hall and James Laurinaitis made more of an improvement than the offense behind Sam Bradford.

"The point here is that while Bradford was clearly an improvement over the 2009 QB committee, there were substantial improvements in just about every other category as well. It wasn't like Sam turned a garbage team into a contender. Bradford got a lot of press but when we blow away the smoke, the defense was where the biggest improvement came about."

So the Rams team improved because of their vaunted defense. And the offensive improvement was minor and only occured because of the defense and good coaching and little to do with Bradfords ability?

Go back and read again. I said the improvement was roughly equal between offense and defense.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by JayBee:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by JayBee:


I mean, I can understand if Alex had Raye his whole career....as Shurmur's better than him. But the guy had McCarthy, Martz and Turner in 3 of the first 4 years of his career. All 3 of SB rings. All 3 have worked with HOF QB's. Yet there are some in here that have the audacity to say that Alex did not benefit from an OC as good as Shurmur? Shurmur is average, luckily he had a pretty talented QB who can make all the throws. They depended on a lot of short passes. Something Alex STRUGGLES AT. Shurmur + Alex would have been a nightmare.

In addition, I've heard from apologists so many times that young QB's need offensive minded head coaches...that defensive minded head coaches are a recipe for disaster...yet all of a sudden the defensive minded HC who won 1 game the year before is HOF material.

It's so funny how subjective people are. I mean, obviously I'm not Alex's biggest supporter, but at least I state reasons why I don't like him as our QB and support my opinions with facts. I mean he was dealt a bad hand and was in a crappy situation. I'm not denying that. But just because he didn't get a fair shake, I must stick with him? The world...and LIFE does not work like that. The 9ers should not be a charity.

Had to laugh at this! You have responded to few arguments against your assertions but feel justified to criticize those who give you answers you don't like without addressing the comments. You lump all pro Smith arguements together so that you can use "silly" arguments to refute reasonable statements.

You feel justified to label coaches good, mediocre, or bad based on minimal information. Spagnola is mediocre at best because he had a bad first year. 'when I point out Walsh's first year as being almost equally as bad, you ignore that and restate your negative opinion.

I pointed out that the offense made progress in every single area...ignored. You just restate how average Shurmer is. Based on what? A year where the offense progressed in every facet. Do you know Shurmer personally that you are able to judge him so easily?

Lastly, the reason I have wanted an offensive minded HC is because you seldom have continuity on offense with a Defensive HC. Now Shurmer is gone and they were lucky enough to bring in McDaniels. Do you think McDaniels will be there long term? The Rams (and Bradford) may be in the same position as the 9ers with revolving door OCs. Not a good thing.

Like I said, there are a lot of parrallels between the 9ers and the Rams. Imagine if Nolan had a Bradford... Maybe you'd be speaking as glowingly of him as you do of Shurmur. Just a thought.

Perhaps. But Nolan made two mistakes from the start that really bothered me (although I'm not sure if he made the decisions on his own), hiring McCarthy as the OC knowing that he was likely to get a HC job soon, and then drafting Smith instead of Rogers. Rogers personality was more NFL ready. Nolan didn't like Rogers free spirit.

Then he compounded the first mistake by hiring Turner, another guy who was likely a HC within a year or two. Which is why I harp about having an offensive mind running the organization.

You can't really think like that though. It was a calculated risk. Every good OC is going to potentially get a coaching job. I'm quite surprised Turner got another shot to be honest with you. I don't really blame Nolan there...for the most part he hired good OC's.

I wasn't high on Rogers either...but I deff did NOT want Smith. I didn't like what I saw from him... I wanted the 9ers to trade down.

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Quote:
Bradford rookie year after inheriting a 1-15 team:

60% completion, 18 TD, 15 INT, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles lost in 16 games



Alex Smith First Full season as starter:

58.1% Completion, 16TD, 16int, 35 sacks and 4 fumbles in 16 games.

Good. I am glad you are making my point for me. Both QBs have pretty similar numbers here in their first full years. Clearly, Bradford was more pro-ready... we already knew this when he was drafted.

What I have said over and over is this. "What's in the distant past doesn't excite me."

Alex had a 91.9 QBR down the stretch while under still miserable playing conditions (coaches/OL). Bradford? Well, he's around that 76 QBR... decent for a rookie, and understandably inferior to the 91 QBR veteran. While Bradford may end up the better QB in the future, I'll take the 27 year old vet with a 91 QBR over the 23 year old with a 76 QBR.

91 QBR lol Bradford was able to make scrub WRs look good throwing them open all season long. Smith didnt look like a starting QB until AZ and if it wasnt for AZ Smith #s would be hurting worse than they are now. Why would you take a 27 yr old inconsistent benched 3-7 QB. Over a 23 yr old 7-9 rookie who looked good all season long. On a offense with little talent but himself, Smith and Steven Jackson.

Bradford made their entire offense better from the start to finish. He took a poor OL and by getting the ball out quickly took alot of pressure off them. He made it easier on Jackson to keep pounding the ball up the middle. He didnt have a freak TE like Davis or 3 1st rd picks on the OL and without a 1st rd WR like Crabtree. He just made the basic passes on a consistent level every week. In the same kind of predictable run run pass/punt offense. If Smith played as consistently as Bradford we wouldnt have been 6-10. Its apples and oranges with these 2 QBs. Bradford looks like a star QB. Alex Smith looks like a bust QB.

You must not have seen or heard much of Bradford toward the end of the season. Teams figures out the very limited playbook Shurmur had given him and effectively shut him down. There was even talk beginning among Ram fans that he should be benched as it was clear he was not capable of carrying the team once the league figured him out.

In the first 8 games his QBR was 79. In the second half, if you take out the two games against the pathetic 49er secondary, his rating was 59, and that included a 113 against an even worse Denver defense. That is not a consistent performance nor does it show any improvement in the second half.

Yes, I will take the player that performed better at the end of the season than one who faded markedly.I am not saying Smith has more upside than Bradford. I'm merely pointing out that Bradford was not quite the wunderkind that some parts of the media would have us believe.

Alex had a great game at home against Seattle in week 14, but I'm not going to give him any credit for his preseason victory against Arizona in week 17. When you're saying he performed better at the end of the year you're using that term pretty loosely. He just didn't have the oppurtunity to play meaningful games down the stretch this year because Sing couldn't decide what he wanted to do at qb. He beat Seattle, lost to San Diego, then came in relief in the St Louis loss. Comparing that to a 8 game stretch were you took out 2 criticial division games is absurd.

Originally posted by JayBee:


You can't really think like that though. It was a calculated risk. Every good OC is going to potentially get a coaching job. I'm quite surprised Turner got another shot to be honest with you. I don't really blame Nolan there...for the most part he hired good OC's.

I wasn't high on Rogers either...but I deff did NOT want Smith. I didn't like what I saw from him... I wanted the 9ers to trade down.

That is why teams that want a consistent offense need a HC who knows offense. The HC can then help with the continuity if the OC leaves. The system would stay the same and the players wouldn't be jerked around.

From McCarthy (who was WCO) to Turner (digit), Hostler (nothing), Martz (crazy system of his own), Raye (good in the 70s-80s), and then Johnson. Looking at these guys the problem is not their ability to run an offense, it is the total lack of similarity between their way of doing things. Like having Picasso start a painting, Miro in the middle and Dali finishing. Imagine what you would wind up with.

You didn't know Turner would get a HC job? There were posts on this site exclaiming the absurdity of his hiring for that very reason. I don't like him as a HC but that doesn't mean much, no owners have asked me. The only way he should have been hired is as an assistant or co-HC/OC with total control over the offense...and a three year commitment.

I was in favor of the trade down as well but no one wanted to do so. It was just the bad luck of the 9ers to have the number one in a year with no true top calibre players. They should have drafted a lineman...my idea of building from the ground up. In retrospect the two best players in that draft were Ware and Merriman at 11 & 12.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by JayBee:


You can't really think like that though. It was a calculated risk. Every good OC is going to potentially get a coaching job. I'm quite surprised Turner got another shot to be honest with you. I don't really blame Nolan there...for the most part he hired good OC's.

I wasn't high on Rogers either...but I deff did NOT want Smith. I didn't like what I saw from him... I wanted the 9ers to trade down.

That is why teams that want a consistent offense need a HC who knows offense. The HC can then help with the continuity if the OC leaves. The system would stay the same and the players wouldn't be jerked around.

From McCarthy (who was WCO) to Turner (digit), Hostler (nothing), Martz (crazy system of his own), Raye (good in the 70s-80s), and then Johnson. Looking at these guys the problem is not their ability to run an offense, it is the total lack of similarity between their way of doing things. Like having Picasso start a painting, Miro in the middle and Dali finishing. Imagine what you would wind up with.

You didn't know Turner would get a HC job? There were posts on this site exclaiming the absurdity of his hiring for that very reason. I don't like him as a HC but that doesn't mean much, no owners have asked me. The only way he should have been hired is as an assistant or co-HC/OC with total control over the offense...and a three year commitment.

I was in favor of the trade down as well but no one wanted to do so. It was just the bad luck of the 9ers to have the number one in a year with no true top calibre players. They should have drafted a lineman...my idea of building from the ground up. In retrospect the two best players in that draft were Ware and Merriman at 11 & 12.

The Tom Moore's of this world aren't very common. The reality is if you want a quality coordinator you have to take the risk that he might get a head coaching gig.

I can't blame Nolan for hiring McCarthy and Norv Turner. Does anyone really think Alex would be better off if Jimmy Raye was his guy for 6 years? Because that's what you get when you tell 95% of coordinators that I don't want you seeking a promotion. Norv Turner was a 2 time failure as a head coach so yeah it was a surprise to see him get another gig.

In hindsight Aaron Rodgers should have been our pick. Come on now he is Super Bowl champion and a top 4 qb at the very worse. You take your chances that he could get past a shaky start. No guarantee that he pans out, might not be the qb that he is in GB, but that's a still a chance you have to take. Just because Alex got hurt in years 3 and 4 doesn't mean Rodgers would have. Why couldn't Rodgers succeed under Martz?