Our OL in a time context

Three memes are commonplace in discussion–fan and pundit–of the Rams right now:

1. The team is poised for a break-out year.
2. The team has got to get off to a better start, to break the pattern of falling far behind the break-even point in the first month.
———————————–
3. This young OL might be pretty good, and might begin to emerge after a month or two.

Anybody notice the contradiction between #3 and the first two memes?

Now, see, I figure smart people who do apparently dumb things always have reasons which at least seem rational to them. So, I look at the decision made about our OL and ask, “Why? Why doom an apparently make-or-break season with an OL that can’t really be very sound for the 1st quarter or half of the season?”

To me, only one explanation makes sense. For the Ram FO, this is not a make-or-break season. They’re heading off to So Cal and they have already written off this season as a lame duck year played in front of a fan base that they are deserting anyway.

Imagine for a moment that there were no re-location issue. The FO expected to play in StL for decades to come.

In that case, they’d be asking what perennially losing teams always ask: “how can we keep the faith with the fans? How can we break the pattern?”

Fisher and Snead are in Year 4. Take away the relocation issue, and they’d be on the hottest of hot seats. They’d know they MUST break through this year.

In that case, they’d know that they must shore up the OL in the short term. OK, I know that they have misfired on some high $ FA OL. It makes long term sense to shift the focus to acquiring young OL. But, if the short term mattered, they’d hedge their bets SOME. They could certainly acquire a couple of inexpensive vet OL to facilitate the growth and transition of the young kids. There are always guys who were cut somewhere who’d give you vet support for green rookies.

But they went all in on kids. And, the most optimistic vision MUST assume that these kids will be pretty green AT LEAST through the first month or two. You know, the weeks when we play SEA, PITT, AZ, GB, etc.

Any neutral analyst will tell you that a 2-4 opening record would be pretty decent with this green OL, ASSUMING the kids can play. And 2-4 will put us back into that zone of irrelevance from which we have shown zero ability to emerge under Fisher.

Now, again, assume there is no re-location issue. What will StL fans be doing and saying in year 11 of the Misery and year 4 of Fisher under-performing the expectations he excited on arrival?

But, see, if you’re abandoning the StL punters anyway, well, who cares? And in THAT context, the long range youth movement on the OL makes a lot of sense. Assuming they can play, then 2016 would be a year when it would be reasonable to expect the emergence of a fine running game and offense.

In So CAL.

It’s the only way it makes sense to me.