[Stranger]

Here's the underlying theme that undermines the Rams going after a QB in the win-now scenario: They keep saying (players, Fish, Snead) "we lost three games by 3 points, two in OT, and another by 7 pts. That's a 3-4 game swing that had it gone the other way, we are in the playoffs." They all say/think they can get that done with THE PLAYERS THEY HAVE NOW.

Granted, Snead and fish have said they would bring in "competition" at the position. But also said Keenum played at top-10 level according to the analytics and could/should have been 4-0.

Coach speak, or do they truly think they can get to the playoffs with Keenum et al?

We can all clamor for a new QB and for a new OC and for seeping offensive changes. But, if THEY don't think that a way then we are all going to be disappointed big time.

I think that's their public position. I think, or at least hope, that private they understand the urgency and need for serious change.

[ramsman34]

I hope so Stranger. But, their actions seem to match their words to date, the Foles/Bradford deal notwithstanding.

Maybe they trade for Cutler this go-round, lol. I don't think any QB in the draft is a day -1 starter let alone a franchise QB.

[dieterbrock]

Key is that you need a qb. And there is no exact formula. Seattle tried the FA thing with whitehurst/Jackson/Flynn and then hit home run with rookie. Arizona tried trade for kolb, draft and hit home run with veteran.
Key is keep trying.

[Elvis]

I'm not sure i buy the premise. We're not a QB away, we're an offensive philosophy/staff away

[moklerman]

I'm not sure i buy the premise. We're not a QB away, we're an offensive philosophy/staff away

While I'm as anxious as anyone to see a change/improvement, what about the offense the first quarter of the season in 2015? When Foles was actually looking viable, the offense was at least "good enough". I think it's a fair argument to say that a better QB with all else being equal would have netted the Rams more wins and possibly a playoff appearance last year.

Once Foles turned into Matt Schaub and the Rams had to go with a borderline backup in Keenum, it's difficult to say if the offense would have been good enough, especially with Gurley.

[Elvis]

But maybe Foles didn't turn into Matt Schaub. Maybe the Rams offense turned Foles into Matt Schaub?

[moklerman]

But maybe Foles didn't turn into Matt Schaub. Maybe the Rams offense turned Foles into Matt Schaub?

Maybe, but it didn't turn Keenum into Schaub so, I don't think so.

The Rams offense is basically "don't fuck things up" on offense. Just don't throw interceptions and pick-6's. That Foles, who had showed that he was able to protect the ball at times in the past just went off the rails...makes me think it was Foles.

[Gareth]

But maybe Foles didn't turn into Matt Schaub. Maybe the Rams offense turned Foles into Matt Schaub?

I agree with this. The Fisher offense makes a QB tentative. Once the confidence goes, it's a done deal.

I love how they keep pointing to how they easily could have won a couple more games. It's true - but so is the flip side. Fisher has the loser mentality of trying to keep the game close. Then when he loses close games he says they easily could have won them. In the words of my friend Aeneas1.....mama mia and good grief!

[Stranger]

I'm not sure i buy the premise. We're not a QB away, we're an offensive philosophy/staff away

Perhaps a new QB, a health TGIII (at the beginning of the season), Shurmur as passing coordinator and Boras as run coordinator will give the offensive guys enough autonomy to be creative and create something successful. They ALL have to know that they can't screw up now, and everyone is watching.

[aeneas1]

But maybe Foles didn't turn into Matt Schaub. Maybe the Rams offense turned Foles into Matt Schaub?

very plausible...

I love how they keep pointing to how they easily could have won a couple more games. It's true - but so is the flip side. Fisher has the loser mentality of trying to keep the game close. Then when he loses close games he says they easily could have won them.

you've mentioned the same during past seasons i believe, it was very true then and it's very true now... in fact let's look a little closer at fisher's silly 2015 claim...

> without ayers' fumble td return in game 15 vs seattle, the rams would have come up short 16-17 instead of 23-17 winners.

> against the lions the rams offense scored 14 points, tru's pick 6 was the difference in the 21-14 win.

> without austin's td punt return against the seahawks in the first game of the season, the rams would have come up short 27-31.

> 6 of the rams' 9 losses were by 6 points or more.

> in the 3 games the rams lost by a field goal, the offense averaged just 15.7 points per game - had the field goals been made the offense would have averaged just 18.7 points per game, the equivalent of a 27th ranking in offensive scoring. which, amazingly, is what fish apparently wants to hang his hat on.

seems to me the rams were a lot closer to a 4-12 record than a 10-6 record, not too surprising when you field the league's 32nd ranked scoring offense..