London Fletcher on 920….outspoken, pulls no punches

This topic has 8 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 2 months ago by zn.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

Author

Posts
September 30, 2014 at 10:44 pm #8776

zn
Moderator

London Fletcher
Tuesday, September 30, 2014 7:06 PM

Fletcher starts at 7:47 in

October 1, 2014 at 8:13 am #8785

zn
Moderator

————————–

laram

London Fletcher said more than once, the Rams front office did not know what they were doing and were satisfied making money. He said they made no attempt to keep the core players together.

As we know they could have signed both LL and LF, because they ended up signing Duncan for more. London mentioned that as well.

IMO he’s also throwing Martz under the bus, by mentioning the details of letting him go, and the fact he didn’t adjust to the Pats dropping 8 in coverage and running Marshall in the SB.

London is not biting his tongue here, great interview.

He just said he would have loved to have played his entire career in St Louis!!

October 1, 2014 at 9:39 am #8790
Winnbrad
Participant
Best LB the Rams ever had.
- This reply was modified 10 years, 2 months ago by Winnbrad.
October 1, 2014 at 12:30 pm #8792

wv
Participant

Not sure running Faulk more in the first half
was the answer. I’ve heard that idea before,
but i dunno. If I’m an opposing coach,
i ‘want‘ the GSOT to run the ball.

If i remember right what was effective in the second half
was the short passing game. I think.
I’m like London —
i havent wanted to rewatch it.

w
v

October 1, 2014 at 12:34 pm #8793

Herzog
Participant

Not keeping London was so epically tragic.

October 1, 2014 at 1:25 pm #8795

zn
Moderator

Herzog wrote:

Not keeping London was so epically tragic.

For years, some would say, well they can’t afford both Little and Fletcher.

That was never true.

From what I have gathered over the years, it was a couple of things. First, Lovie wanted Duncan. 2nd, JZ assumed LF would cost more than he actually DID, so he just went for Lovie’s plan.

Martz has said that his single biggest regret as a Rams coach was not fighting to keep London.

October 1, 2014 at 6:59 pm #8827

c1ram
Participant

Somehow I was under the impression at the time it was either/or (LL/LF). Got spun on that one. Duncan was a dud. Bleh…what a loss.

October 1, 2014 at 8:03 pm #8840
InvaderRam
Moderator
ever since london left, i’ve been waiting for that dominant middle linebacker for the rams again.

they’ve come close, but i’m still waiting. i sometimes wonder if ogletree could be that guy at some point?
- This reply was modified 10 years, 2 months ago by InvaderRam.
October 1, 2014 at 10:31 pm #8850

zn
Moderator

Summ history.

Rams have had, IMO, 4 top MLBs since I started following them. And the Rams luck with them has not been good.

In the late 70s and 80s, there was Carl Ekern and then Jim Collins. Both were just constantly injured.

There was Jack Reynolds, and then the Rams unloaded him. The reason they let him walk is because he did not fit Bud Carson’s defense. He could not take deep drops into coverage.

That was the same reason Lovie wanted Duncan over Fletcher.

Ironically, it was the same defense. Lovie ran that ole Tampa cover 2 he got from Dungy, and Dungy got that ole cover 2 from the Steelers, and … Bud Carson.

So that ole Steelers-then-Tampa cover 2 and its coaches have driven off 2 Rams MLBs, Reynolds and Fletcher.

In hindsight, if’n it wuzz me, I wouldn’t have said “I want that cover 2! Hire Carson, hire Lovie!” Instead, I would have said “who is running a defense out there that could really use Hacksaw or London?”
Author

Posts