-The Glove-":224fnlq4 said:
KCHawkGirl":224fnlq4 said:
Throwdown":224fnlq4 said:
RolandDeschain":224fnlq4 said:
Oh my God...Stat of the day. Sorry, Rams fans:
SI_DougFarrar @SI_DougFarrar 1m
Well. PFF has Cortland Finnegan allowing a perfect passer rating of 158.3 both outside and in the slot. Consistency!
Didn't someone say they had the best corners in the league like a month ago?
Who would ever say that? Either way the Ram's issues aren't the secondary. They're on Bradford, the OC, and that sad collection of running backs made worse by counting on Austin to be Welker right out of the gate. Total recipe for disaster in my opinion.
That secondary was a huge part of their issues when Finnegan gives up a perfect QBR and Jenkins gets bullied on the other side. Thwres an issue there, and I doubt its solely tje players. That scheme is all messed up
They didn't start getting burned on the back end until it was clear that Gore was going to run all over them. The very same thing happened in week 2: Wilson was getting NOTHING in the passing game at the beginning of the game, but Lynch was running down hill. Eventually that softens the secondary. It's Football 101. The Rams couldn't stop the run, and eventually that opened up the pass. Likewise in week 2, the 49ers abandoned the run because it was going nowhere, meanwhile Seattle stuck with it. It became a blow out.
If your defense can't stop the run, you aren't going to win many games. If, however, you have the luxury of having such a good secondary that you can consistently put 8 in the box without sacrificing much in the secondary (like Seattle), teams are going to struggle mightily. The only chance anyone has against Seattle is to STICK with the run, and keep running into the wall, and have good defense until the inevitable cracks in the ground game open. But normal, mortal defenses? If you can run on them, and have success, odds are you can eventually pass on them.
NOTE: in the 90s the 49ers, who had Carroll as a D-Coordinator, ran the same scheme Seattle does now. They generally shut down the run often with 8 in the box and forced teams to be one dimensional, and they were consistently a top 10 defense (I think they were number one in 95 and 97, and 6 or so in 94 and 96; they ran the same scheme before and after Carrol got there and left). BUT, when teams stuck with the run, eventually they had success, and with that came success in the passing game. Green Bay did that a lot to San Francisco in the 90s, as did Atlanta when they had success against us with Anderson at running back. You've got to run the ball if you play a great defense. The problem with those teams, and with Seattle now, is that the offense is also good, which means you have only so long before you will feel compelled to abandon the run. But really, you can't. If you do that, the game will snowball out of control almost every time. You might say, what about the 49ers in the 80s and 90s? They didn't have much of a running game. They also LOST in the playoffs in more years than they won, because again, when you play a great defense, you've got to be balanced. Same thing with the Patriots last year. Eventually it backfired on them. Yeah, they improved their running game, but they were too quick to abandon it and put everything on Brady and the passing game. Likewise with Manning most of his career. You've got to stay balanced against good defenses, and in the playoffs, almost all defenses are good.
The Rams couldn't run the ball Thursday, the 49ers could, and they eventually got whooped. And again, in week 2, the 49ers abandoned the run, Seattle didn't, and eventually the game snowballed into a blow out. Again, Football 101.