 PERSPECTIVES ON THE FUTURE & PAST, BY
PHANTMJOKR(Dec 7) |
||
| Back
to the Main Page FEATURES- The E-Zine's Quarterback Watch- -Front Office Debate- Ram-ble's Offseason Analyses Zack Neruda's FOD Analysis "E-ZINE" Fan Profiles- GRITS Ram Fan Smack Chick The HERD's home- RAMS Message Board Add yourself to The HERD's Official Roster (guestbook), if you think you are man enough! The HERD's ULTIMATE link page-add your favorite here! |
FAULK
WILL BE THE DIFFERENCE. Faulk: the future difference... Up until this year
Marshall Faulk was on the fringe of superstars for me. I didn't see him play much.
But---the guy is flat out one of the best backs around. I'll say this. IF you start
thinking about any type of all-time team he's got to be a guy that you put in your
backfield. Now he's not your Dickerson, Earl Campbell, or Jim Brown but he can run and
he's perhaps the finest pass catching back ever and a heady player who can turn a game
around by taking one touch to the house. As the playoffs approach I think the the great difference between the Rams and most of the NFC is how well Marshall Faulk has been playing and actually specifically how well he CAN play. I once mentioned that I thought that we didn't have to worry about his rumored "attitude" and soft play once the games became worth playing. He is another gamer...I said that as long as the Rams remained "in the hunt" Faulk would play at his peak in an effort to win. Now in the current case I think as good as he's been that he is in fact capable of even greater feats in the close important games...In short I think he's the best "gamebreaker" RB in the NFC and this is what puts the Rams at an advantage. This is not to say that he is by anymeans a "do it alone" back. For him to be successful the Rams have to threaten in the secondary, something they've proven thay can do... In the playoffs, and beyond, no one else seems quite as balanced as the Rams or quite as completely threatening offensively. If anyone can beat the Rams they will do it with their defense. They will have to hold Faulk down AND control/contain the passing game (unless of course we see another Tennessee where the game is given away on turnovers. But I do not expect that from Warner in the playoffs, though he might come out tight protecting the ball.). Stopping the Rams offense when they are putting up even a good B game will take a great defense. I think that means only the Bucs on the NFC side and the Fins (although they aren't playing as well of late) Jags, or perhaps the Bills in the AFC. I have been thinking the Bucs might be the NFC team that could be the most problematic for the Rams. I think their defense is very good and capable of keeping the Rams for the most part "in check". Yet I think the Rams are every bit as capable of doing that to the Bucs offense. So what does one look for? Speed and the big play...and because of Faulk I think that type of assement is always going to favor the Rams in that matchup... So...back to Faulk. I think that swing pass touchdown that he took to the house at Tennesee to open the second half is what Faulk is made of. He's gonna have a couple a big playoff games with the Rams before he's done... The Colts make a nice matchup offensively....Had Polian been able to mine higher draft picks for Faulk like I think he wanted to, the trade off for James would've been a great coup...yet he only got the 2 and 5. He wanted those picks to help the Colts horrible D from a year ago, and their D is better, but I think it would be hard pressed to keep up with the Rams because of their balance... So I am going to say this again...the Rams success in the playoffs will reside firmly on the shoulders (or more specifically on the feet of) Marshall Faulk. In this instance I think he's about the best RB of the playoff teams and specifically he's better than a banged up Fred Taylor in the Superbowl. He's better than Greg Hill. He's better then Alstott and Dunn. Better than Robert Smith and Hoard. Better than them all...and that is why I see him as the big difference in the playoffs. The Rams have a good enough D and a great O. In the balance of things they are better...and it's because of the Faulk edge. THE DEFENSE. The run D makes the Rams D look better AND it is against what was anticipated. I think that it's a combo of Fletcher and Wistrom. Todd Collins has helped. IF Leonard Little is anything approaching the edge rusher that is thought to be then he's gonna be a real addition to the squad...in fact I think the Rams LBs are generally underrated. Flether is on pace for 150 tackles or so and Jones has had some very nice all around games. Todd Collins is great at the POA though he can't run downfield very well. In the long run this may not be a great problem with Little waiting around to help out. The two I think will be very complimentary... The pass defense is also suffering from a few things probably unmeasureable. The team has gotten a little soft at times with big leads. We've seen them play in a "prevent" mindset, let other teams move some, and then put the clamp on... and then they cracked up once or twice... there will be little money this offseason to upgrade the corner spot. Either Lyght re-signs and I would imagine McCleon, Bly, and Allen suffice---or do they get a replacment for Lyght and??? Well there probably won't be enough $$$ left over at the position to do much. There are a few contracts due over the next two years. McCleon is one along with Lyght, Carter, & Bruce etc. Really the room for improvement in this area is going to have to come from internal improvement i.e. eitther McCleon and Bly have to get better/pan out or...the safety tandem improves...I am cautiously optimistic. Bly is is both impressive AND scary. He makes plays but he's making them from being out of position often. I think he'll be very good--- he looks the part and shows some outstanding tools but...he IS raw and too many guys are winding up behind him...actually EVERY time I saw him making a play the man is behind him. So he is making plays by playing "risky" underneath receivers. (This is the way, say, Larry Wilson used to play safety.) In Bly's case I think this means that he could run hot and cold. So far he's been successful but I think there is a great chance that he will be an up and down player much like in his college career. A good receiver/Qb combo I believe could play "over" him... Of course the Rams other corners get burned too. And Bly is for sure a playmaker. I've yet to get a good look at his run support. Suffice to say I think that by size alone he's going to trail McCleon in that area. To me, Taje Allen, despite his improved play, is just a body. I think I'd like Bly in the nickel but he needs I believe safety help... Yet the group as a whole is pretty good and I think VERY deep. I really liked Coady showing in the first Carolina game. ALL of the safeties I think have something to offer. Bush looks overpaid perhaps but his versatilty is likeable. TEAM DEPTH. This is a very good team, has depth (even at quarterback!), and should be good for some time to come. It is probably the best team in the NFC and I think quite capable of wnning a Superbowl... The recent rumors that the Rams are going to be very likely to keep their star players and keep the team stable and intact is a VERY good sign IMHO. Add in a few draftees at say tackle on both sides of the LOS and the team looks very solid and deep for a long time to come... If the Rams keep Green and Warner next year (which is what I think most think) then they look fabulously deep across the board. IF they can give themselves another year with Germaine or find another backup then it could be even better if they can make a windfall off of one of the QB's. MOHO is that I'd shop them both and take the bigger windfall as I think either one is capable of leading that kinda team to a championship... In a year or two plus some change, then, one of the QBs will be turned into a profit of picks. That might keep this team successful longterm... So when I look at the future I'm very happy. IF you look at a lot of champions it takes them several years of relative success to finally achieve ultimate success. I won't be either surprised or greatly disappointed if this team bows out of the play offs. They have depth and a future and I think they'll take several shots at winning it all over the next 3-5 years... In comparison the Falcons always looked "fragile". They were one Chris Chandler injury away from colllapse. (Or now Anderson plus one injury to Chandler). POLIAN & THE FAULK TRADE IN RETROSPECT. I think Polians's Faulk "talk" was just smokescreen to cover his butt. I think the idea was to get a back that extended more into Mannings future AND turn a windfall off of trading Faulk. I think that it had little to do with them thinking Faulk was "not so good" as much as they talk. For one despite James' showing Manning claims to "miss" Faulk in the backfield...and he was the top all purpose guy from scrimmage last year... We remember that for one the best offers all came out of the division Faulk left, the AFC East. There were rumors that the Pats and Fins both made offers of first rounders plus or multiple first rounders. THEY knew his value but the Colts wouldn't take their offers (which is what they wanted to use to help what was one of the worst defenses last year). What they wanted was perhaps what the Pats offered. Two number ones. Then the Colts would have had three of them to get their back of the future plus. Why the Rams got a windfall is that no one outside of the AFC East offered that much. Then there was the fall out of the Baltimore deal that helped the Rams with timing. So rumors were that Polian was hot because that deal fell through. I think he was hot because his plan wasn't working...Everyone in the AFC East knew what Faulk was/is... Polian hatched this plan last year when they shut Faulk out of his escalator clause. This is why Faulk was angry and was going to be a pill for the Colts. They shut him down 14 yards behind Emmit Smith...and they did that so that they could trade him... It's still worked out OK for the Colts. They look to have a great back and I think the 2 pick the Rams sent is a starter for them... HISTORY---BROOKS V. VERMEIL. We can look back and say Vermeil made mistakes but now but I think any reasonable assesment shows that there was something going on right underneath all those past wrongs, stuff which few wanted to acknowledge because of the poor record....The one and only great mistake that I link to Vermeil was hiring Rhome and the great evidence in the front office debates is that Vermeil and Rhome weren't getting along and that Vermil was going to get rid of him despite all the "mandate" talk. It is rather evident that what is going on with Vermeil's Rams was in a way pretty much the opposite of what was going on with Brooks's Rams. Vermeil's team at least never quit on the field... there was a lot of difference in player personnel management and IMHO the team continued to sink in the early Vermeil era due to screw ups in the Brooks/Orty one. There wasn't much choice in the Brooks firing and obviously there was in the Vermeil non-firing...I mean let's put it this way---IF it's about "players making plays" then who are the Brooks/Orty pickups that are adding to this team? Carter? and...who else? Conwell maybe? Miller. Carter was a no brainer. But most of the rest of the present contributors were found in either the Vermeil era or the Knox one. There's almost nothing left of the Orty/Brooks pickups. Vermeil's regime has just done it by scouring for players and picking guys who could play over guys with big arms and fast times... True, two years isn't probably enough to go on on just a record evaluation. Still while most don't think so but I think in the case of what we can put together of the behind the scenes workings that the two eras were very different. From what I've read Brooks had quit, and Vermeil never did. He had a plan and pretty much stuck with it. Even if/when he relinquished some of the control I think he felt good about guys like Armey having a big say...and whoever else. From the "old" regime there wasn't much left beside Shaw, Zygmunt, and Becker and all the other voices, ones that Vermeil brought in, were all talking about getting character football players. I think this is why whatever happened at the "showdown" last January never ruffled Vermeil all that much and he never fought it a la the Parcells/Armey Glenn flap in NE. Look at the Hakim, Williams, Fletcher, Pace, Jenkins, etc vs O' Neal, "the donut disposer", and Robert Jones' and his soft attempt at MLB...and you get the picture... There's Vermeil admission that he had trouble relating these players to those in the past but I don't see how that effects relating them to each other. This leads directly to the Kirksey-isms. Vermeil looks at Kirksey (or Tucker) and says something about how good they are but...you put them in drills with their teammates and they aren't either staying or winning the positions. In the end rather early he got good help with Armey and he's got a lot of guys around that do and always did know the difference between the Kirkseys and "Hall of Fame" corners and the real goods...AND Vermeil always leaned on them. In the end the Vermeil era drafts were very good. This was all VERY much better than the Brooks/Orty years...but then, Vermeil had to take the bottoming of record for the Brooks/Orty decisions. The deepest problems for the Vermeil Rams were that you wern't going to win with the kinds of anemic running game they were putting forth and since Vermeil's arrival that was tied to two things in the past---a lack of putting any resources intot he O line and the terrible Bettis for LP trade-off. And he wasn't going to win fielding Eddie Kennison, J Tude Thomas, and Keith Crawford. Isaac Bruce is still the straw that stirs the drink and as long as he was hurt defending a groundless Rams was easy. So the Vermeil team despite its record over the last two years was moving forward with a plan. They built cap room that was going to be beneficial somewhere in the future IF it was spent right...and now I think we see that in Timmerman, Collins and Trent Green that it was (& there is still a windfall looming from trading one of the Qbs). Faulk was a gift. It woulda been interesting to see what a Hill/Holcombe woulda done as the feature backfield but...I'd much prefer Faulk at that price. It was a no brainer. The hard practices? It was put forth by Vermeil that you couldn't start soft and then get tough. I think there's reason to believe that it was a part of the weeding out process and we can see now giving in later has endeared him with the team. Finally I don't think that Vermeil is quite the stubborn old too long away from the game coot that some made him out to be. I never did think that. Were there problems? Sure...but the real ones were still to me for the most part holdover problems that Vermeil has been the one to fix. He DID get rid of LP. He did finally move away from Banks and the quarterbacking situation that he was saddled with. He's gotten the D to play fabulously well and the offense has finally been fixed... |
|