[R4L]

If McV wanted to move on from Kromer, that moment has passed. In fact his original impulse in 2017 was to hire Bill Calahan, but he wasn't available. Well Calahan was free for a while recently after being fired in Washington. He was free, but then the Browns signed him.

So McV had that chance plus of course many others to move on from AK, and did not. That's in a time where he also replaced 4 coaches. A transition time. You can pretty much bet if he kept a guy, he believes in him.

Of all Rams fans I read and am familiar with all over the net, there is really only one big outspoken Kromer critic.

Kromer has a long, very deep, very good career building OLs in New Orleans, Chicago, and Buffalo. Whatever went wrong with the OL in 2019, it was a lot of things, and IMO does not reduce to simple coach blame. Besides it was a mixed bag anyway. They certainly missed Saffold, and other things went wrong too. But then toward the end they were doing things like hanging tough against the SF defense in a close game, and that's with 3 injury replacements including 2 rookies. 3 injury replacements on the OL is usually the kiss of death. Yet the OL in that game played better than the 2018 OL did against the Patz. So anyway yeah the OL started out a mess in 2019 but actually showed promise with the newbies toward the end.

There's more than one, that's for sure. I'm with Canuck on this one. Kromer seems to get by on name alone and that's not helping the Rams. He assured McVay that Allen and Notebook were ready to go and they weren't. And that was the season.

[/zn/]

San Fran played without both of their starting tackles and they didn’t skip a beat. A1 posted many other teams who had lines composed of castoffs and low drafted linemen.

Saying a line is built of "castoffs and low drafted linemen" doesn't mean much, it's like saying OLs are often built out of good parts not that well known to fans. Which is, generally, true. The comment is presumably based on the assumption that only high-picked, name-brand linemen make a good line. And therefore presumably the "ronin" types are just low talent. Which is bs. It's just not that simple.

Linemen can be coached up in a particular system to be effective and productive, good players, regardless of where they were picked and regardless whether they are kept by the team that originally drafted them. Sometimes it takes a couple of years to be coached up into being an NFL caliber starter. That's it, and it's common. The Rams best center after Rich Saul was Doug Smith, a UDFA. The GSOT OL included Gruttadauria, McCollum, and Nutten, and that was after dumping a 1st and 2nd round pick (Gandy and Wiegert). One of their best linemen, Timmerman, was originally a 7th round pick.

So saying that NFL OLs include a lot of castoffs and low picks is saying nothing---that's just how lines are built. Does not mean the player is lacking, it just means that there are hundreds of college linemen every draft and a lot more of them can play in the NFL than the namebrand top picks.

SF did well under those conditions (injuries) but in terms of saying that starting 3 injury replacements is USUALLY the kiss of death, I have had challenges out there for years now saying give me examples of OLs that are THAT injury depleted that played well, and believe me, the actual examples that hold up are rare indeed.

[/zn/]

There's more than one, that's for sure. I'm with Canuck on this one. Kromer seems to get by on name alone and that's not helping the Rams. He assured McVay that Allen and Notebook were ready to go and they weren't. And that was the season.

So one bad OL out of many consecutive good ones and that means he's just sailing on his rep?

How about this. If you actually think he is not a good OL coach, openly predict that as long as he is the Rams OL coach they will never again have a good line. Put it down in black and white.

And of course you would also be saying McV is negligent for keeping him.

...

[Hacksaw]

Kromer seems to get by on name alone and that's not helping the Rams. He assured McVay that Allen and Notebook were ready to go and they weren't. And that was the season.

Do we know this to be true or is it speculation? Is there a quote from Kromer somewhere I missed?

[dieterbrock]

Whitworth needs to take some of that blame as well. He really fell off the cliff last season.

He wore down at the end of 2017 and 18. And last year was average at best. I agree, and think his decreased ability didn’t help LG either.

[dieterbrock]

Saying a line is built of "castoffs and low drafted linemen" doesn't mean much, it's like saying OLs are often built out of good parts not that well known to fans. Which is, generally, true. The comment is presumably based on the assumption that only high-picked, name-brand linemen make a good line. And therefore presumably the "ronin" types are just low talent. Which is bs. It's just not that simple.

Linemen can be coached up in a particular system to be effective and productive, good players, regardless of where they were picked and regardless whether they are kept by the team that originally drafted them. Sometimes it takes a couple of years to be coached up into being an NFL caliber starter. That's it, and it's common. The Rams best center after Rich Saul was Doug Smith, a UDFA. The GSOT OL included Gruttadauria, McCollum, and Nutten, and that was after dumping a 1st and 2nd round pick (Gandy and Wiegert). One of their best linemen, Timmerman, was originally a 7th round pick.

So saying that NFL OLs include a lot of castoffs and low picks is saying nothing---that's just how lines are built. Does not mean the player is lacking, it just means that there are hundreds of college linemen every draft and a lot more of them can play in the NFL than the namebrand top picks.

SF did well under those conditions (injuries) but in terms of saying that starting 3 injury replacements is USUALLY the kiss of death, I have had challenges out there for years now saying give me examples of OLs that are THAT injury depleted that played well, and believe me, the actual examples that hold up are rare indeed.

I gave up halfway thru your diatribe, did you happen to make a point?

[/zn/]

Do we know this to be true or is it speculation? Is there a quote from Kromer somewhere I missed?

I don't think the problems with the OL reduce to the newbies on the interior. You can play newbies on line if the 2 OTs hold up and they didn't. Both AW and Hav started the season out shakey, and fortunately later AW picked his game back up and Evans came in at ROT. With both tackles regressing the newbies just compounded the problem. Later in the season the OL did much better even with 2 rookies. But that was with AW having stepped back up and Blythe at center.

[dieterbrock]

Was it because they were better coached? Their line coach taught them how to block better? Or was it the offensive scheme that knew how to play to whatever their strengths were?

Yes. They were put in a position to succeed, and were prepared to do so.
The Rams oline, even at full strength looked out of sorts and overmatched.
That’s on the oline coaching.

[/zn/]

I gave up half

[R4L]

Do we know this to be true or is it speculation? Is there a quote from Kromer somewhere I missed?

No it's me speculating but I'm sure they asked for his input. You don't think he signed off on it? If that's the case then it's on McVay.