[dieterbrock]

I'm thinking offensive PPG will tell the true story.
How many teams made the playoffs ranking 25-32 in offensive PPG?

[Hacksaw_64]

I'm tired of 3 yards and a cloud of dust as good offense. Fisher is coaching like its 1986 or 1996, not 2016. Modern football is a different game and I think it's passed Jeff Fisher by.

[Rams the Legends live on]

I figure he was hired to build and produce a winning team. If he was hired to make our loses not look as bad such as 26-31 vs 15-65. If we was hired to stop the hemorrhaging then we have to extend him because he has been successful. If he was hired to stop the hemorrhaging and make the team a healthy team he has only done half of what he was hired for. So I would say he has this year to have a winning season if he fails to do so in my opinion the Rams should simply say goodbye.

[Tom, With Horns]

Jeff Fisher still believes that a good running game, a strong defense, and an efficient, mistake-free offense gets you in the playoffs

And he believes that for good reason since in fact everything you describe does get you in the playoffs, if you're good at it.

If you look at the top 10 teams in rushing attempts last year 6 were in the playoffs. If you look at the top 15 teams in rushing attempts last year 9 were in the playoffs. Of those 9, all of them also had top 15 ranked defenses. 6 of them had top 10 ranked defenses.

Right now what you describe is in fact THE formula for getting to the playoffs.

...

Oh, good. Sounds like we got us the right coach, with the right philosophy and plenty of experience. He's well-respected in the industry, too. Despite my misgivings I expect we oughtta sign him to an extension and let his plan unfold.

Run the ball. Play good defense. Avoid mistakes. Win.

Fisher-ball, then, is exactly what LA needs.

[/zn/]

I'm thinking offensive PPG will tell the true story.
How many teams made the playoffs ranking 25-32 in offensive PPG?

Well except PPG doesn't tell you about the context.

How many teams with a melted down qb and a very inexperienced and then also injured OL make the playoffs? Or, have a high PPG?

Any? Ever?

In fact I think given those circumstances, and playing such a tough schedule in such a tough division, 7-9 is a real achievement.

Again, unless people can name teams that had similar circumstances and did better.

.

[aeneas1]

the stars aligned for fishco, the relocation cemented his future as the rams hc, i'm not at all happy with his inability to field at least a middle of the pack offense in 4 years as hc, but am willing to cut him a little slack given he was saddled with bradford and his contract/ineffective play, not a lot he could have done to improve the qb position at the time, but he's on the clock now as far as i'm concerned, get the offense in gear sooner rather than later or get shown the door...

[Elvis]

Now that relocation is over, i think there's going to be a lot more focus by the FO on winning.

Fisher has had 4 years to get ready.

Let's see if he is...

[dieterbrock]

I'm thinking offensive PPG will tell the true story.
How many teams made the playoffs ranking 25-32 in offensive PPG?

Well except PPG doesn't tell you about the context.

How many teams with a melted down qb and a very inexperienced and then also injured OL make the playoffs? Or, have a high PPG?

Any? Ever?

In fact I think given those circumstances, and playing such a tough schedule in such a tough division, 7-9 is a real achievement.

Again, unless people can name teams that had similar circumstances and did better.

.

The irony here is comical. The context?
Yes, the context was in what the playoff teams have in common. Lowest PPG in the league is not a common trait.
Offense with Case Keenum only averaged about 16 ppg.
Not going to come close to the playoffs with that kind of production

[moklerman]

Now that relocation is over, i think there's going to be a lot more focus by the FO on winning.

Fisher has had 4 years to get ready.

Let's see if he is...

Well, he can't be expected to win this year because he's got a rookie QB. Then next year, they still won't have a #1 WR so the offense couldn't possibly reach that next level. Then in '18, there will be so much to do to get ready to move into the new stadium. In '19, all will start to come together but with a move to the new stadium, you can't expect to overcome all the distractions. In '20, we'll be back to where we are now. Fisher and Snead will need new contracts and Donald, Quinn and others will be expecting new deals along the way.

There's really no time to realistically fit in a winning season until 2021 or so. But THEN...hoo boy, 10-6 and a playoff appearance, here we come!

[/zn/]

I'm thinking offensive PPG will tell the true story.
How many teams made the playoffs ranking 25-32 in offensive PPG?

Well except PPG doesn't tell you about the context.

How many teams with a melted down qb and a very inexperienced and then also injured OL make the playoffs? Or, have a high PPG?

Any? Ever?

In fact I think given those circumstances, and playing such a tough schedule in such a tough division, 7-9 is a real achievement.

Again, unless people can name teams that had similar circumstances and did better.

.

The irony here is comical. The context?
Yes, the context was in what the playoff teams have in common. Lowest PPG in the league is not a common trait.
Offense with Case Keenum only averaged about 16 ppg.

ot going to come close to the playoffs with that kind of production

You making this heatedly antagonistic aside, you just simply did not follow what I meant by context. You're not using the word remotely the way I am.

Context for me means an analysis of why the team is performing the way it is. There can be several answers to that in advance of looking, so you actually do have to look. You can just dismiss that kind of context and you can't NOT look and claim to know.

And to me that means looking at several key factors...not just the qb, and not just the coach.

So for example when CK started with a relatively healthy, stable OL the offense actually averaged 19.25 (pure offensive) points a game.

And that also has to account for the fact that CK is #2 type qb, not a franchise starter, let alone elite.

So I would say that yeah, an offense going 3-1 with a #2 qb and a relatively healthy but also inexperienced line is a sign of moving in the right direction.

Why do I look at whether or not the OL is relatively healthy? Because rarely does a qb and therefore an offense perform well when the OL is multiply injured to the point of being disrupted. It;'s actually something you can count on in analysis...it's routinely a determining factor, unless a team has that rare type of qb who can still thrive in those conditions.

Context to me means looking at the team analytically and accounting for its real situation. In contrast, to ME, what you did was just apply some kind of abstract, contextless thing and then nevertheless leap to conclusions about the team. And I don't think doing that is either comical or tragic... ... I just think it's an argument that won't stand up to scrutiny. But then we all make those at different times. C'est la.

On another level of this topic, what about PPG and the teams that made the playoffs last year? Of the playoff teams, 7 were in the top 12 in terms of PPG. That ranged from 28.6 to 22,6 PPG. If you count all the playoff teams, they ranged from ranked 1st (28.6 PPG) to 24th (18.9 PPG). The superbowl winner was ranked 22nd (19.6 PPG).

....