On competitiveness

Recent Forum Topics Forums The Rams Huddle On competitiveness

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #17644
    rfl
    Participant

    As you all know–and probably until you’ve become sick to death–I have been going on and on about competitiveness through the year. I don’t know that I’ve found a good wavelength to productively discuss this issue with you guys. But, I thought I would take up ZN’s challenge of a few weeks back to discuss what I mean by competitiveness.

    I’ll start with a brief story. I was watching Feherty interview Padraig Harrington. PH, who has won 3 majors, was talking about what losing does to a golfer. Now, keep this in mind. A PGA tourney begins with, say, 120 golfers. All but 1 lose. But that is not what PH meant.

    PH said that most golfers don’t like the pressure of winning and losing. They avoid true contention. But then, they shoot 64 on Sunday to finish 10th and are happy. They play 4 rounds AND NEVER EXPERIENCE PRESSURE! Meanwhile, another guy is in contention all week. On Sunday, he goes for it on the back 9, messes up, and shoots 74 to finish 18th. PH said the guy who shot 74 on Sunday and finished 18th was competing. The guy who finished 10th wasn’t.

    Because, you see, what makes it competition is the risk of losing when you have an opportunity to win. That’s the test of performance that earns genuine respect and makes people care. If you are a competitor, A) you WANT to test yourself in the crossroads between winning glory and losing’s misery and B) you perform well under pressure.

    If you aren’t a competitor, you may be a great athlete who does well much of the time. But in the key moment, you shirk the test of winning or losing. In basketball, you score 19 points in Q’s 1-3, but vanish in Q 4. You will run off the court to avoid the ball on the final trip down by 1.

    All of which means that there IS something commonly called garbage time. And it helps us distinguish between talent and competitiveness, between meaningful and slack performance. For example …

    An offense that hangs up some points in the 2nd half after doing nothing while the team fell hopelessly behind does not get the credit that it would get for being productive enough to keep its team in the game. And it gets nothing like the credit it would get for being productive down the stretch.

    All of which helps one understand a common phenomenon. A team falls behind badly. It makes a comeback and approaches the opportunity to snatch a victory. Then, just when winning seems possible, it breaks down. And then, afterward, credit gets taken for the almost-comeback. Sound familiar?

    There is also garbage time within a season. A team that is out of the race for the playoffs faces far less competitive pressure than a team in the running. Lose a bunch of games early and you can play some games with reduced pressure … until you have a late chance to steal the playoffs–or achieve a winning season–and the pressure starts to return. A non-competitive team will then slide back into the performance of a loser.

    Again. Sound familiar?

    Now, I want to clarify what I see in all of this. It’s about winning … and then again it isn’t. Competitiveness is tested and more or less defined by the win/loss record, but it is not identical. Winners will do a lot of winning, but they also lose. Remember Harrington’s point. The guy who shot 74 on Sunday and finished 18th was more of a competitor, played more competitively, than the guy who easy-breezed to a 10th place finish, shooting 64 when the pressure was gone. The comfortable loser, says PH, didn’t LOSE. He avoided the test of winning and losing.

    So what, then, is competitiveness?

    It is, first, the willingness to face the test of winning and losing. An athlete, a team can play, can even look pretty good while avoiding the risk of losing a game that matters.

    It is, second, a focus on winning throughout the contest. Harrington’s competitive loser PLAYED GRITTY, COMPETITIVE GOLF TO MAINTAIN A POSITION IN CONTENTION FOR 63 HOLES. That takes more than golfing ability. It takes competitive nerve. Fans of golf know that every tournament sees guys who go low for 1 or 2 rounds, but can’t keep it up. The competitor plays good shots and bad shots, but keeps that score low enough to be in contention. Again, the focus is not on playing perfectly. Or even well.

    Hell, good golfers know how to make scores when their swings are way off. Nicklaus says he is proudest of the tourneys he won with his C game. Lose the tee shot in the right rough, scrape an iron into a bunker, make a mediocre flop to 10 feet … but sink the put to steal a par. Do it again, and again, and again, and sink a long snake on 17 to win by a stroke.

    Or, just as well, do all that and come up a stroke short. But stay in contention to the end. Needing a birdie to a sucker pin in the back left corner on a green surrounded by water. Take the shot on. Don’t back off it and play for the safe heart of the green and an easy par that comes up a stroke short. Seek the pin. Miss it in the water and finish 6th rather than 3rd? Who cares? You had a chance to win and you took it. That’s competing.

    It is, 3rd, the ability to perform under pressure. Down the stretch. When it counts. Again, it isn’t a matter of always succeeding or winning. It’s a matter of making plays down the stretch.

    Nicklaus won 18 professional and 2 amateur majors. He also finished 2nd 20 times, more often than anyone. In the famous Duel in the Sun, Jack and Tom Watson lapped the field. The last 2 days, they separated completely and virtually competed in match play. On Saturday, both guys shot 64. On 17, Watson pulled ahead by a stroke. He then hit a perfect drive, hit his approach to 3 feet on 18, birdied for a 63 and won. Beat Nicklaus.

    But, see, Nicklaus was a winner. Here’s what he did on 18. He drove in bad, deep rough on the right. Drawing on Herculean strength, he hauled the ball out of the rough and grabbed the front-right edge of the green. 60 feet from the hole. Watson, already ahead a stroke, had left his 2nd just above hole high, at 3 feet. The competition was over.

    Or so Watson’s caddy thought. Watson said, “Jack’s going to make this one.” And he did. 60 feet. Already trailing a stroke with Watson at 4 feet for an unmatchable birdie. But Nicklaus wasn’t done competing. He drained the 60 footer to force Watson to make his birdie putt for the win. Watson understood who Nicklaus was. The Bear had made a mistake on 17, missing his putt, and again on the 18th tee. But he never quit competing. He made miraculous shots from the rough and on the green to take Watson to the very last shot. He finished 2nd. He LOST THAT SUCKER. But he never let up.

    Know what he said to Watson as they walked down the last fairway? “This is what it’s all about.” Walking off 18, he put his arm around the young gun who was challenging his place at the top of the game and ruffled his hair. He loved competing. Win or lose.

    So there you have it:

    1. Competitors seek the test of winning glory or facing the misery of heartbreaking losses. They don’t shirk the test.

    2. Competitors make as many mistakes as anyone, but they limit the damage and remain in contention to the end.

    3. Competitors perform well enough to win down the stretch. They may come up short. They make mistakes and maybe the other guy plays even better. But they take the contest to the end. If their competition wants to win, they have to win it. The competitor won’t give anything away.

    OK, that’s my take on competitors.

    The applications to the Rams are pretty obvious, but I’ll leave them unsaid. Or, rather, I’ll leave it to the many posts I’ve written about the team over the last couple of years. It’s why I don’t equate talent level with winning. It’s why I am not impressed with wins after the season is already over or with garbage time production of points or stats. It’s why I am very, very hard on a coaching staff which has demonstrably failed, 3 years in a row, to prepare a team to open the season or to sustain competitiveness to the end of the season.
    It’s why, as far as I can tell, my take on the Rams is out of step with this board, for the most part.

    But maybe my estimation of the gap between my view and that of the board is overdone. I dunno.

    In any event, I would enjoy a discussion of the general principles discussed here. If a thread develops and if it degenerates into yet another insistence that the team is better now than it was because of talent level and a few isolated and inconsistent statistical trends, I’ll be disappointed.

    But hey, you makes your post and you takes your chances. We’ll see how it goes.

    • This topic was modified 9 years, 9 months ago by rfl.

    By virtue of the absurd ...

    #17659
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    Excellent writing, RFL.
    I enjoyed reading that.

    I dont think the problem with the Rams
    is a lack of competitive spirit though.
    I dont see that.

    I see key injuries, youth, lack of depth,
    and bonehead-mistakes, mainly.

    We are all tired of the mediocrity
    though, thats for sure.

    w
    v

    #17674
    rfl
    Participant

    I dont think the problem with the Rams
    is a lack of competitive spirit though.
    I dont see that.

    Interesting.

    I guess, by the way, that I failed to say what I intended. The post is not about competitive spirit.

    It’s about performance that competes effectively in the clutch, the zone where games and seasons are won and lost. It’s not measured with emotion or with individual plays, any more than a golf tournament can be won with a single shot or good round. It’s about measuring up to the test of winning and losing.

    Do you really see the Rams doing that? Honestly? Hmmmmmmmmm …

    Well, it’s clear that there isn’t much interest in this issue. Time to put this dead horse to rest.

    By virtue of the absurd ...

    #17676
    Dak
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>wv wrote:</div>
    I dont think the problem with the Rams
    is a lack of competitive spirit though.
    I dont see that.

    Interesting.

    I guess, by the way, that I failed to say what I intended. The post is not about competitive spirit.

    It’s about performance that competes effectively in the clutch, the zone where games and seasons are won and lost. It’s not measured with emotion or with individual plays, any more than a golf tournament can be won with a single shot or good round. It’s about measuring up to the test of winning and losing.

    Do you really see the Rams doing that? Honestly? Hmmmmmmmmm …

    Well, it’s clear that there isn’t much interest in this issue. Time to put this dead horse to rest.

    I think I know what you’re trying to say. There has to be a certain amount of nerve in a competitor. And, the key is, you need to go for the win … strive for greatness.

    It’s interesting that you have this problem with the current organization, because with Fisher, I think that was the fear when he was hired. His teams too often perform around .500 … always “competitive” in that they could beat any team, but rarely consistent. Look at his one Super Bowl team, and that team did have competitors. They gave the GSOT everything they could handle, and just fell up a yard short. McNair was a big reason for that, and in his heyday, with the ability to shirk off defenders and find open receivers, he kept plays alive and helped keep that team alive.

    If you’re saying that the Rams don’t have enough players like that, I cannot argue against it. What I see, though, is the possibility that some of their players CAN develop into that.

    I also think what you’re talking about is rare, which is why you only have a Nicklaus or a Montana or a Lawrence Taylor or a Tom Seaver or a Madison Bumgarner, every so often. Hell, we don’t even know if Andrew Luck is that guy until he has a complete team around him so he can ascend to the crucible of the sport.

    Taken a step below that ultimate competitor, have the Rams shown they can be competitive and win big games? No. Can they? Yes, I think they can, if they continue to upgrade the talent and the young talent develops. I think that Fisher can evolve, too, we shall see.

    I’m always the optimistic fan in the offseason, though. Or else, why care? 🙂

    #17680
    rfl
    Participant

    Thanks, Dak. Great response. I feel as if you heard what I was saying. I haven’t felt that very often this year.

    Just a couple of quick responses.

    You are right about the rarity of a Nicklaus. I guess I would respond by saying that the great champions provide the best examples. But, that each sport produces a fair sampling of tough competitors who aren’t great, but who overachieve through sheer mental toughness. In golf, Harrington himself is an example. Or you can think of guys like Lanny Wadkins, or Raymond Floyd, or Curtis Strange. Guys who competed, who were always tough to beat, without being in rarefied air.

    The NFL has produced magnificent champions, of course. But, it always produces, every year, tough competitors. And there’s another issue:

    If you’re saying that the Rams don’t have enough players like that, I cannot argue against it. What I see, though, is the possibility that some of their players CAN develop into that.

    Football is different from golf in a key way. It’s a TEAM GAME. Yes, great teams are led by great competitors from Bednarik to Blanda to Unitas to Montana to Ray Lewis. Great competitors can lift a team as players. But, not all competitive teams have world class competitors as players. And, recall, in my view, there are probably 5-6 COMPETITIVE teams each year. AZ is a great example this year. I can’t name a single great player on that team other than, probably, Larry F. But they COMPETED all year. Their QBs went down and they kept competing. It caught up with them, but they never quit.

    We don’t necessarily have to find more individual PLAYERS who are competitive. We need to be a more competitive ORGANIZATION.

    I’ve written this half a dozen times. This is Fisher’s own standard. When he came, he said he needed to teach the players how to win. He said if you understand how, you can start winning. In Season 1, he seemed to be doing that. A pretty weak team was learning to compete and steal some wins. It wasn’t capable of much more. But it was pushing its ceiling by doing the 3 things I identified here. That 8-7-1 record was probably 4-5 games better than it should have been.

    In the 2 following seasons, the team has utterly failed to come close to that level of competitiveness. The talent has risen. The standard of play is better in some ways, on D, in STs, even to some extent on offense. But the competitiveness has not held up.

    In the opening games both years, the team has slid into a non-competitive comfort zone, exactly like the golfer who shoots 73-72 and misses the cut or makes it on the number. There’s no real chance at winning. So the pressure evaporates. A few plays here and there, a could stolen wins, and one can say, “see, we’re getting better.”

    But it’s garbage time. Cheap, uncompetitive achievement. And the proof of it lies in those last few games both years. Just when the team got to the edge of some competitive possibilities, it fell away again, sliding back into the comfort of a losing season that has enough flash to claim that good times are ahead.

    Whose fault is it? What has to happen to turn things around?

    What do I know? Football is a coach’s sport, and the HC has to take responsibility. But the players do, too. Do we need a couple great competitors on the field to drive the troops? Does Fisher have to change his preparation? I dunno.

    What I do know is that competitiveness is measured by winning and losing. Not by playing well while out of touch with wins. I would far rather cheer for a limited but tough, competitive team that wins ugly but wins more than it should than for a talented team that puts streaks of brilliance together with an overall inability to compete when it matters.

    This Rams team has, with the exception of the GSOT anomaly for 3-4 years, ACCEPTED mediocrity or worse for 30 years. There’s nothing I can do to change anything. I will, however, continue to call “Bullshit” on false competitiveness until I see the team actually compete.

    DAK, my friend, I have broken my resolution to let the dead horse lie. Your fault, my man! You shouldn’t have encouraged me. LOL!

    By virtue of the absurd ...

    #17681
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    wv wrote:
    I dont think the problem with the Rams
    is a lack of competitive spirit though.
    I dont see that.

    Interesting.

    I guess, by the way, that I failed to say what I intended. The post is not about competitive spirit.

    It’s about performance that competes effectively in the clutch, the zone where games and seasons are won and lost. It’s not measured with emotion or with individual plays, any more than a golf tournament can be won with a single shot or good round. It’s about measuring up to the test of winning and losing.

    Do you really see the Rams doing that? Honestly? Hmmmmmmmmm …

    Well, it’s clear that there isn’t much interest in this issue. Time to put this dead horse to rest.

    Well, i dunno. For one thing, i dont think
    we can compare golf to a team sport. Ya know.
    A team sport is so much more complicated.

    Do the Rams “compete effectively in the clutch?”

    Well, hell no. Not nearly often enough, LoL.

    But the reasons, imho, are the ones i listed
    in my other post.

    And i do think they are close. I expect
    a break out season next year. Because
    I think a lot of pressure on the offense
    will be relieved with some solid upgrades
    on the OLine. And yes, i think thats do-able
    and i think Snead can accomplish that. It
    cant be that hard to find a Center and a Guard.

    Let me ask you something RFL, would you fire
    Fisher at this point or give him another season?

    Also, what do YOU expect to see next season?
    I expect a ten win season or thereabouts. What
    do YOU expect?
    w
    v

    • This reply was modified 9 years, 9 months ago by Avatar photowv.
    #17689
    rfl
    Participant

    And i do think they are close. I expect
    a break out season next year. Because
    I think a lot of pressure on the offense
    will be relieved with some solid upgrades
    on the OLine. And yes, i think thats do-able
    and i think Snead can accomplish that. It
    cant be that hard to find a Center and a Guard.

    Let me ask you something RFL, would you fire
    Fisher at this point or give him another season?

    First, your question. Would I fire Fisher?

    I dunno. Probably not, especially in the lame duck year. GRITS is right, I think, about the Fish being asked to handle the transition.

    But even apart from that, I don’t think I would fire him this year. Not unless I had another, better coach on tap.

    What I WOULD DO if I were the ownership would be to get both Snead and Fisher into a locked room and give them a simple message: no more bullshit about how we’re improving and getting better after crushing, soul-destroying losses. Don’t ask fans to swallow that crap. And make it clear to players–people who can’t compete are going to be gone.

    Hill should NEVER be given another contract after that pick on the goal line in SD. You do that with a season on the line after a decade of losing … I don’t care. You gotta go. That’s not what a winning team is about. It should be made clear to players that guys who can’t compete with discipline are going to be gone.

    I would tell Fisher and Snead that “getting better” is no longer acceptable. It isn’t enough. You’d damn well better have the team READY for opening day. You’d better find an OL with healthy, competitive guys. You’d better have Williams calling a defense that is sound AND aggressive. You’d better get this team into contention and ready to compete down the stretch, or we’ll get someone who can. And you’d better talk to everyone as if we expect success, not as if we suck less than before and that minimal improvement is meaningful progress.

    And this is where your view coheres with Fisher’s and differs from mine:

    And i do think they are close. I expect
    a break out season next year.

    You and I fundamentally differ in perspective here. It isn’t a matter of conclusion drawn. It’s a matter of the questions to ask.

    “Being close” is a matter of improvement. It’s talent level, and somewhat more than that. But it’s a matter of taking incremental steps along a continuum leading, hopefully, to a breakthrough.

    And, see, I am asking different questions. As I keep saying, I saw this team learning to compete in Fisher’s 1st year. It happened ALMOST immediately. Remember how they “almost” beat DET in Game 1? They weren’t capable of actually competing with, say, NE. But they did compete with SF, precisely because SF offered a challenge a competitor could deal with. SF played a game that a competitive but inferior team could hang in there with. They did, and stole 2 results, a win and a draw.

    That teamed learned to compete virtually immediately. Fisher SAID he could teach them, and then he did. They played like winners though their capability was still limited.

    That’s what I haven’t seen since. The team has “gotten better,” but its competitive discipline has regressed. It’s a much better team than the ’12 bunch, but has a worse record.

    So, most guys on this board raise the question of improvement. You say they are close to breaking through. Well, maybe they are. Maybe they aren’t.

    What I am saying is that breaking through won’t come from incremental improvement. It won’t come from raising the talent level. It COULD come from adding a genuine leader in competitiveness, though they’re hard to find. But I would say …

    1) We haven’t seen what I am talking about AT ALL in the last 2 years.
    2) We won’t see a breakthrough on the basis of improved talent.
    3) We’ll have no idea when the breakthrough is coming … until we see it in games that count and that matter.

    Can Fisher lead us to that breakthrough? I thought he would. He still might. But I really wonder, hearing his comments this season, whether he still has fire in the belly. I honestly wonder about that.

    Well, hopefully at the very least I have been able to clarify HOW my view differs from the board consensus.

    Of course, we’re all old friends who will stick with this team forever. Which is what the last decade has seemed like!

    By virtue of the absurd ...

    #17693
    rfl
    Participant

    Also, what do YOU expect to see next season?
    I expect a ten win season or thereabouts. What
    do YOU expect?

    Didn’t see this question before.

    I guess, in general, I expect to see a 7-9 or 6-10 season.

    Of course, it’s too early to say anything. Show me who the OL and the QBs are, and I’ll have a better idea.

    But, you know, I honestly could imagine anything.

    Get off to a good start with a stable OL and healthy, starter-level QB, and I could imagine a big year. There’s no reason we couldn’t win 11 or 12.

    Get off to a bad start in an empty stadium and under a lame duck coach, and I could imagine sliding into the morass and winning 3-4. I can SEE how that could happen.

    Again, the question is whether the team learns to compete. And there’s no way to predict that.

    By virtue of the absurd ...

    #17696
    Dak
    Participant

    rfl, about this:

    Hill should NEVER be given another contract after that pick on the goal line in SD. You do that with a season on the line after a decade of losing … I don’t care. You gotta go. That’s not what a winning team is about. It should be made clear to players that guys who can’t compete with discipline are going to be gone.

    I think that statement kind of goes against your philosophy of being a competitor. Hill kept the Rams in that game and was going for a win there … and made a mistake. I actually couldn’t get really mad at him, because I know he just didn’t see something in that moment. I think the kind of guy you don’t want would have wilted in that game. It was a back-and-forth struggle, and the Rams showed a lot of heart, which is exactly why that pick was so devastating. Yes, it was bad. But, not a JJ bonehead play.

    #17701
    rfl
    Participant

    rfl, about this:

    Hill should NEVER be given another contract after that pick on the goal line in SD. You do that with a season on the line after a decade of losing … I don’t care. You gotta go. That’s not what a winning team is about. It should be made clear to players that guys who can’t compete with discipline are going to be gone.

    I think that statement kind of goes against your philosophy of being a competitor. Hill kept the Rams in that game and was going for a win there … and made a mistake. I actually couldn’t get really mad at him, because I know he just didn’t see something in that moment. I think the kind of guy you don’t want would have wilted in that game. It was a back-and-forth struggle, and the Rams showed a lot of heart, which is exactly why that pick was so devastating. Yes, it was bad. But, not a JJ bonehead play.

    I can see why one might argue that. But I see it differently.

    There are mistakes and mistakes. Here’s what I see in that guy. A player so freaked out by the chance to win that he loses his awareness. I mean, he aimed the ball at the GROUND and MISSED. See, a QB in that situation has one responsibility. Preserve the FG attempt. Run a play, but if it isn’t there, if there is any question, throw the ball away. AWAY! Not toward a lot of guys flailing around the ground.

    To me, that’s a guy who fits my formula precisely:

    * Bad 1st half.
    * Dramatic improvement in garbage time when a win isn’t likely–no pressure.
    * An improbable comeback … and a retreat into the fog on the play that counts.

    I can see what you’re saying. But to me that game is the perfect example of what I am talking about. A player–and a team–that cannot compete when the chance to win is really there. Remember–the defense sucked that day. Right after beating DEN impressively.

    Well, that’s just me.

    By virtue of the absurd ...

    #17707
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    You and I fundamentally differ in perspective here…

    “Being close” is a matter of improvement. It’s talent level, and somewhat more than that.
    But it’s a matter of taking incremental steps along a continuum leading, hopefully, to a breakthrough.

    And, see, I am asking different questions. As I keep saying, I saw this team learning to compete in Fisher’s 1st year. It happened ALMOST immediately. Remember how they “almost” beat DET in Game 1? …..

    That teamed learned to compete virtually immediately. Fisher SAID he could teach them, and then he did. They played like winners though their capability was still limited.

    That’s what I haven’t seen since. The team has “gotten better,” but its competitive discipline has regressed. It’s a much better team than the ’12 bunch, but has a worse record.

    So, most guys on this board raise the question of improvement. You say they are close to breaking through. Well, maybe they are. Maybe they aren’t.

    What I am saying is that breaking through won’t come from incremental improvement. It won’t come from raising the talent level. It COULD come from adding a genuine leader in competitiveness, though they’re hard to find. But I would say …

    1) We haven’t seen what I am talking about AT ALL in the last 2 years.
    2) We won’t see a breakthrough on the basis of improved talent.
    3) We’ll have no idea when the breakthrough is coming … until we see it in games that count and that matter.

    Well, hopefully at the very least I have been able to clarify HOW my view differs from the board consensus.

    Well, i am reading those words slowly
    trying to ‘get’ what you are saying.
    I’m not quite sure that your way of thinking
    ‘computes’ in my wv-brain. It almost
    sounds like you are talking about some sort of
    “intangible” thing. A ‘mental toughness” maybe.
    The kind of mental toughness we always associate
    with Belichick teams, maybe. I dunno.

    Anyway, all i can say is — Food for thought.

    w
    v

    #17719
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    I always look at context.

    Why did they start faster in 2012, in spite of massive issues with the OL (that line started 4 guys who were out of football or benched the following year–Hunter Ojinakka Turner Richardson).

    Me? I think they had key veterans in place like Jackson, Mikkel, Amendola. And it made a huge difference.

    Why did they start slower in 2013?

    A massive miscalculation which had them attempting a spread passing game with inexperienced, young receivers and a running game dependent on Daryl Richardson.

    Why did they start slower in 2014?

    Losing Bradford was a shock, the defense was not in sync and still learning a new system, and they had a banged up OL all summer that was not in sync early on because of down time with guys who were recovering (Long, Wells).

    But comparing this to 2012, another thing missing is veteran leaders with actual cache. I think Bradford was going to be that.

    For me all of this is completely dependent on personnel.

    That’s just how I tend to see it.

    #17721
    Avatar photojoemad
    Participant

    For me all of this is completely dependent on personnel.

    That’s just how I tend to see it.

    Yep, you can be the most competitive guy on the field but without talented personnel it’s tough to win consistently

    #17722
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    For me all of this is completely dependent on personnel.

    That’s just how I tend to see it.

    Yep, you can be the most competitive guy on the field but without talented personnel it’s tough to win consistently

    I don’t mean it;s a talent issue, though in principle you’re right.

    I was talking partly about injuries, which change how units can perform.

    #17724
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    we need more guys like aaron donald. i think.

    that’ll do a lot to improve the consistency and mental toughness of this team.

    now take a guy like ogletree. tons of talent. but it was disheartening to read that he showed up unprepared at the beginning of the season. can he eventually mature and become what the rams need him to be? maybe.

    but we need more donald and less ogletree on this team.

    and a qb.

    and an interior offensive line.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.