[Elvis]

#5 defense in the NFL, #4 rushing team.

And yet...

[OldSchool]

If the passing office was 22 instead of 32 we'd be a winning team.

[TomSlick]

If the passing office was 22 instead of 32 we'd be a winning team.

Painfully true.

[Stranger]

If the passing office was 22 instead of 32 we'd be a winning team.

How is it that Fisher can't get a 22-ranked offense? It just seem unfathomable to me that someonw with 20yrs as a HC and basically a bottomless coaching-staff budget can't make this happen after 4yrs.

[OldSchool]

If the passing office was 22 instead of 32 we'd be a winning team.

How is it that Fisher can't get a 22-ranked offense? It just seem unfathomable to me that someonw with 20yrs as a HC and basically a bottomless coaching-staff budget can't make this happen after 4yrs.

I think this style of offense in Fishers mind should be a 22 ranked offense or better.

[moklerman]

I've thought about this too and I think some of these numbers are lying. First of all, rankings are based on yardage so right off the bat, the defense is going to look better than it actually is since Fisher's games, by design, are usually shorter. Less plays equals less yards equals higher ranking.

Which also explains the lower offensive ranks to some degree. But the rushing ranking in this day and age is askew. Being the 5th best rushing team in a league that basically doesn't rush, means...what? Not only that, the rushing ranking leads one to assume that the team can run the ball like that all the time. But the Rams' numbers have been all about Gurley busting a long run at some point. They don't consistently run the ball well, they struggle a lot and then get a few long gainers.

This isn't to say that I disagree with the premise. The Rams do need to pass the ball better. But since the running game isn't as dominant as the numbers might suggest(IMO), the play action isn't going to be as effective in general and with the shortcomings I think the offense itself has as well as the players...it's hard to imagine the unit magically jumping 10 spots in the rankings.

[Elvis]

I've thought about this too and I think some of these numbers are lying. First of all, rankings are based on yardage so right off the bat, the defense is going to look better than it actually is since Fisher's games, by design, are usually shorter. Less plays equals less yards equals higher ranking.

Which also explains the lower offensive ranks to some degree. But the rushing ranking in this day and age is askew. Being the 5th best rushing team in a league that basically doesn't rush, means...what? Not only that, the rushing ranking leads one to assume that the team can run the ball like that all the time. But the Rams' numbers have been all about Gurley busting a long run at some point. They don't consistently run the ball well, they struggle a lot and then get a few long gainers.

This isn't to say that I disagree with the premise. The Rams do need to pass the ball better. But since the running game isn't as dominant as the numbers might suggest(IMO), the play action isn't going to be as effective in general and with the shortcomings I think the offense itself has as well as the players...it's hard to imagine the unit magically jumping 10 spots in the rankings.

In this case, the numbers aren't lying.

Our defense is 5th by yards, 6th by points, 2nd by offensive points allowed and 4th by yards per play. We defend the 10th most plays per game. Any way you slice it the defense is really good.

The rushing game is even a little better than the 4th best yards per game tell you. We're last in the NFL in offensive plays per game. If you go by yards per carry, we're 2nd best. Now it's true our running game is skewed by all the big runs Gurley has had, but big runs are part of the running game...