Oddsmaker’s early 2015 NFL win totals: Rams 7.5

Sounds about right.

7-9 … 8-8 …

A Groundhog Day of mediocrity.

And we win too many games these days to even have much excitement over the draft.

Being a Ram, fan. How rewarding!

zn wrote:

Given that, where they stand now, I see them as is as capable of 10-6 or better.

Sure. I think they were CAPABLE of 10-6 last year. Even without Bradford. And there is no reason why we CAN’T win 10 this year.

As I’ve said about 700 times, I see a team with a lot of talent which is stuck in a competitive malaise. Occasionally, they flash their talent, always when far behind on the season or in the game. Then, when they get the chance to WIN something significant … they fold again.

I will believe they are breaking out of that mindset when … they actually break out of the mindset and win meaningful games.

It won’t be talent that changes things, although they have major holes at QB and OL. It will be competitive focus and discipline that actually wins some games that matter.

You and I see the same facts about the roster, about flashes of quality, etc. The difference is in how we extrapolate a trajectory forward. You have continued, game after game, year after year, to project an optimistic trajectory. I’ve done it some as well. I was really expecting something last year. I was on board for the bet on Bradford and I expected the Defense to step up. Probably all of us shared that optimistic trajectory to some degree or another.

The problem is that, game after game, year after year, the Rams have folded in virtually every meaningful situation. They haven’t even been able to get their record to .500, even with a superb opportunity going into the final 3 games last year. They just folded. Again.

A losing mindset is the hardest thing to turn around. And talent is never enough. Nor are flashes of quality. Winning requires a different mindset than losing, and I see ZERO evidence of the Rams getting there.

zn wrote:

Well good post.

But I think they can do it.

Just flying the optimist flag.

It’s kind of funny you would fly the “optimist flag” with a picture of Waterloo.

You know, this June will see a major re-enactment celebrating the 200 year anniversary of Waterloo.

I have a minor thing for Wellington, one of the world’s most undervalued generals. He was a real anomaly. An Anglo-Irish aristocrat, representative of the whole, sordid history of Anglo-Irish oppression and exploitation, who instantly rose to the very top of a British military officer hierarchy based wholly on class, not on merit. And yet, an absolutely brilliant general who carefully husbanded the lives of his men and repeatedly beat French generals who had risen to the top, often from obscure backgrounds, by proving their skills in actual battle. It’s a remarkable story–what he did in the Peninsula War, winning battle after battle with fewer troops and resources.

Man never lost a battle. Not one.

Meanwhile, the great Napoleon took a million men into Russia with no plan for handling winter and returned with 100,000. Gloire, eh? Not so much.

I’ve visited the Waterloo battlefield. Kind of weird. There’s a man-made mound of earth, about 200 feet high, built in the 19th Century to commemorate the battle. It offer a fine vista, but completely distorts the battlefield terrain.

Sure wish I could get there this summer!

zn wrote:

He just did not always speak of them well, or at least, did not for an instant drop the claims of class superiority.

Exactly correct. He became a politician, Tory, I believe, and retained that aloof attitude of superiority. I don’t think I would like the guy as a man. But as a general … amazing.

That’s what fascinates me about the guy. The entire British military system was the worst sort of aristocratic cronyism. Stories are legion about the inept, fatuous, self-important jackasses who commanded British armies simply because they felt entitled. Wellington himself SHOULD have been a disaster!

By comparison, Napoleon had instituted a merit-based system that allowed young men from the lower classes to rise through the ranks through demonstrations of military skill. That was one of the bases on which Napoleonic gloire was built. The average British officer was not much of a match for the average French counterpart.

And yet … Wellington was just a born general. By some sheer chance, he HAPPENED to have a brother who was the Viceroy of India and inherited command of British troops there. Again, he SHOULD have been a disaster. But he simply excelled, winning major battles against impossible odds.

And, though I am always an Anglo-phile, I should NOT enjoy the fact that Wellington helped the British East India Company squeeze the last ounce of profit out of the sub-continent. But, he is a remarkable guy.

By the way, you mention Nelson. The British navy, like the army, was an aristocracy. It was very hard to make captain without upper class connections.

However, the difference was that the navy required … voyages at sea. Naval officers were required to put time in actually sailing ships, a demanding task in the days of sail. Their levels of technical mastery simply had to be high, and they had to provide leadership under profoundly stressful conditions–maritime weather. So, naval officers achieved much higher, more widespread levels of professional qualification than did army officers. In that sense, Nelson represented a system that tended (obviously, with many exceptions) to produce effective leadership. Wellington emerged improbably from a system that rewarded mediocrity and sloth.

A fascinating era.