(11-13-2023, 02:01 PM)Housh Wrote: I’m calling it right now and i HATE to do this because i actually like Scott’s physical skillset but there’s a reason the Rams let him go and there’s a reason there wasn’t competition for his services this offseason. But if we continue to start Nick Scott and play him as many snaps as we do, we will not get any better on D than we are right now.


The trait we’ve all seen is his lack of confidence in coverage. That would be ok if behind that lack of confidence he had raw talent, but he doesn’t have that either. Our front 7 and corners got used to playing in front of safeties who had insane confidence and raw talent. So a lot of factors are leading to our defense being turnover or bust but to me the biggest issue is Nick Scott at FS.

We are putting too much pressure on Scott to be good when we should either not be playing him or not rotate him. Lou thinks we can rotate Scott and Hill at either safety spot on the fly and we just can’t. Dax can because he’s amazing but the weak link is Nick Scott. We’ve even rotated Hilton at safety alot which to me is in response to Scott being so ass because there wasn’t one word of doing that in the offseason.


Step 1 is to bench Scott and give Battle minutes. At the very least Battle is a better tackler. So if we gotta get killed in coverage at least have a guy who can tackle.

If you absolutely have to play Scott step 1 would be to stop
Rotating him and Dax at both safety spots. Nick Scott obviously can’t do the shit. Scott really doesn’t seem to be good at any one aspect. If he could do one thing well, then we’d have an idea of what to do but he below average tackling, below average in coverage and absolutely horrendous as a blitzer because he dies on blocks and even if he’s the free rusher he can’t make a tackle.

My heart is saying bench him but i have an idea he’s an ego signing and Lou basically has to play him to justify the decision to sign him.

(11-13-2023, 02:12 PM)Housh Wrote: If you don’t wanna read all that I’m basically saying Nick Scott is horrible and i think he needs to be benched to have a chance to field a good defense

(11-13-2023, 02:14 PM)casear2727 Wrote: So much here.... 

Players leave teams all the time, Bates, Bell, Hurst and Perine left us, did we want hem all gone?  Maybe there is a reason Battle isnt playing just as much as there is a reason the Rams let Scott walk?

How any fan watching TV can say that a defensive player's trait is "lack of confidence in coverage" is comical, at the least.  He may be bad, but lack of confidence in coverage? LOL

The speed of Hill and Scott allow for their versatility, we are extremely easy to read when only one can play high, which is what we get with Battle as he cannot play high.  

Questioning that Lou is playing guys due to his own ego is kinda insane as well.

The fact is, Scott is not good but he does fly to the ball.  Battle is too slow or he would already have Scott's position. Battle needs to improve his anticipation and game speed or he will never start.

(11-13-2023, 02:20 PM)RegularGuy22 Wrote: Question about yesterday. It seemed like so many times Houston receivers were 5 yds in the clear with no Bengal DB close then they missed tackles after the catch. Is this a zone coverage problem, or missed assignments or what? They ate our DB coverage up all afternoon. Lou's 2nd half adjustments didn't seem to have an affect at all.

(11-13-2023, 02:28 PM)MasonDT70 Wrote: Only time Scott should see the field is 3 safety looks, and even then I'd rather have Hilton play safety in that situation. He's been bad. Battle can't be worse.

(11-13-2023, 02:25 PM)Housh Wrote: When you can see a crosser coming from 20 yards away and still allow the catch every time that means you don’t trust your eyes which means you aren’t confident in coverage.

(11-13-2023, 02:39 PM)Housh Wrote: Stats tells me he shouldn’t even be playing


We should’ve kept Bell and rotated Hilton and Dax in the slot

Losing both guys essentially destroyed all our back end communication that won us games. Dax with either Bates or Bell would be insane

(11-13-2023, 02:01 PM)Housh Wrote: and absolutely horrendous as a blitzer because he dies on blocks and even if he’s the free rusher he can’t make a tackle.

(11-13-2023, 03:39 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I think it was against the Bills but Scott was sent in as a blitzer and easily had a tackle for loss of yardage except the RB (or maybe it was Allen) did a small little juke and made Scott whiff tremendously. Dude then ran for a big chunk of yardage.

(11-13-2023, 02:01 PM)Housh Wrote: *
There’s a reason the Rams let him [Nick Scott] go and there’s a reason there wasn’t competition for his services this offseason. 
*

(11-13-2023, 04:24 PM)Nepa Wrote: Nick Scott was not really "let go" by the Rams. Unless you're saying Bates and Bell were let go by the Bengals. The Rams were hoping to sign him.

And he was popular on the Rams. Here are some comments from a Ram's website, "Ramblin Fan," on the loss of Nick Scott:

"The anticipation of news about LA Rams free agent defensive back Nick Scott signing today was pretty unbearable."


" If the Rams lost Nick Scott to the Bengals, the defense would truly be a matter of significant concern in 2023."


"Thanks to his incredible ability to tackle in the NFL Playoffs after the 2021 NFL season, the Rams were able to win four consecutive postseason games to earn their first Lombardi Trophy for the city of Los Angeles. Some say that he was one of the key contributors."



He hasn't lived up to expectations in Cincinnati, but he wasn't "let go" by the Rams. The Bengals were desperate with the loss of Bell and Bates and sold a "young and a rapidly improving NFL defensive back" on signing with them.


https://ramblinfan.com/posts/popular-rams-db-nick-scott-trading-in-horn-for-stripes-01gvr1zag292