I still can’t forgive them for drafting Tutu in the 2nd round. Again, he’s fast, he’s very tough for his size, but it was . . . . one of the most baffling picks in Rams history . . . right up there with Trung.

Tiny, speedy receivers tend to be available much later, even as UDFAs, if that was the criterion. But you almost never find receivers with size/speed/hands/physicality boxes checked late. Speedy smurfs — you can. I would have taken Creed Humphreys instead.

I think they can do their “all in now” strategy and make better draft picks when they have them. I also think they tend to dump players too quickly and for too little. Example Kenny Young, who was actually their best linebacker when they traded him. He’d help them right now, I’d bet.

Anyway . . . they’ve made this route work, obviously, and I’m a fan of their drive and courage to go against the grain. But there are some tweaks to it all I wish they’d make . . . and they’re going to run into cap issues all too soon.

In short, I want what may be impossible: Win now and build for the future. But I’ll settle for the former with a little more emphasis on the latter than is the Rams current MO.

It’s already been mentioned, of course. But anyone else worried about the Bengals receivers and the match-ups with our DBs?

I am. They may be the best trio the Rams have faced all year, and Burrows is exceptionally accurate.

Don’t know if the Rams have considered this, but it might be more effective to play Scott as another corner, rather than at safety. He’s their best (DB) athlete, after Ramsey, and has decent size. Not so confident in Williams or Deayon going up against the tall trees on the Bengals. Ramsey can handle Chase, but after that?

Overall, I like the Rams chances, but I don’t think this is a lock, by any means. It’s likely going to come down to Stafford playing mistake-free, and the Rams D getting to Burrow early and often. The latter can not let Burrow get comfortable in the pocket.

Oh, and the Rams need to run the ball.

Going in, I thought the Rams had this. But I was in a hopeless land later on, thinking the Niners curse was still in effect. Rams made mistakes and let the game get away from them. But they wouldn’t quit, and reversed the narrative. They reversed the sense that the Niners were the team of destiny this year, albeit via their late-in-the-season wins.

Very proud of this team. Whether it was “win one for AD,” or however they managed to dig deep and deeper, they earned this win. Not through “finesse,” but grit.

Have no idea who should get the game ball, but I do think OBJ came up huge, and, surprisingly, Blanton. Of course, the D did what it needed to do, when it needed to do it, and I think it gets some reinforcements for the Super Bowl, like SJD.

Great win, in a very tough game.

It goes without saying that the Rams can’t turn over the football against the Niners. They can’t. And, at the same time, they need to cause the Niners to turn the ball over. The Rams’ D obviously has the personnel for that.

Too many people are calling the Niners the Team of Destiny, and that kind of fiction can take hold of a squad and spur them on. The Rams can not play into those fictions.

Shocking turnover by Kupp. I don’t worry about him for Sunday. But they need to work with Akers all this week. Have him walk everywhere with the football, morning, noon, and night, etc.

Observation from the last game, and the season overall. I think Jefferson is the best #3 in football, and he needs to be used more. Unfortunately, there aren’t enough footballs to go around. And, while it’s not likely the Rams can afford to keep OBJ and Miller, if I have to choose between the two, I go with OBJ. He’s been exceptionally good, and will give the Rams easily the best top four receivers of any team.

Stafford needs to play next Sunday like he’s played the last two weekends. That’s the guy they hope they had traded for.

One regret from the weekend: I didn’t watch the other games, and it sounds like this may have been the greatest playoff weekend in NFL history.

wv wrote:

Also, I think their window is still open for a couple more
years or so. I just think what they need to do is simply
add a couple god-dam OLineman. Instead of tutus.

w
v

It was crazy not to take Creed Humphries in the last draft. Or pretty much any of the O-line guys rated in that range. Tiny receivers with speed, who likely won’t be higher on the depth chart than #4? Um, smart front offices don’t do that.

The Rams are a bit of an enigma, aren’t they? It seems like they make some really inspired moves, bringing in key players like Ramsey, for instance. But then botch draft picks and get far too clever with other trades. They seem like gambling addicts at times. Just can’t help but stay at the tables too long.

I still like their chances. But they should be even better than they are.

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

One major problem with naming capitalism as the issue — and it is — is that most people don’t know what the word means..

=============

Yup. Absolutely. And of course, that is not an accident.

Capitalism dums the population down ‘politically.’

It would have to, in order to survive. So it does.

One of the 5 gazillion reasons, we are totally F’d.

w
v

That dumbing down part. I think it’s fair to say it’s the first economic system in world history with its own, dedicated, self-renewing PR wing. And that PR wing “colonizes” the mind, along with the body, and the macro and micro, domestically and overseas. It’s also fair to say it’s the first economic system in world history with its own “imperialist” laws of motion, baked in. It doesn’t require Napoleons in the political or royal realm for this to keep going; it colonizes everything with or without them — forcing that upon “the state,” or bypassing it if need be.

Of course, it would rather “the state” pay for all or most of that, and it mostly does in the modern era. But it doesn’t require endless wars to unify the people any longer, as Hegel said the Greek State did. Before, during, and after wars it keeps on chugging, imperialistically.

A lot more to it, of course, as far as the way it “naturalizes” the sense that it’s always been our one and only system, and nothing else can or should replace it. But, again, there has never been another mode of production with this kind of appalling stranglehold on hearts and minds . . . and, given its history of atrocity and exploitation, and it’s ongoing inability to “deliver the goods” to more than a small percentage of the populace, plus its planet-killing effects . . . Well, it’s just insane that the world hasn’t cast off its chains by now.

In-sane.

One major problem with naming capitalism as the issue — and it is — is that most people don’t know what the word means. I’ve had a gazillion conversations about that in the real world and online, and it’s pretty clear that the word has morphed into far too broad a sense of economics to be easily discussed.

Especially with those on the right and the center. Most just see it as a synonym for trade, commerce, and business more broadly, and all too many think of it as something that has always existed . . . not as something with an actual beginning, middle, late period and hopefully an end.

In short, when I espouse anticapitalism and alternatives to capitalism, all too many people immediately assume I’m against all forms of trade, commerce, etc. And I’m not. They don’t get that I’m opposed to our current mode of production, the one specifically that began roughly 4 to 5 centuries ago (depending upon the scholar or scholarly school one sees as authoritative on the matter). I tell them why, but I’ve already lost them by simply opposing “capitalism,” which they see as synonymous with all trade, commerce, Mom, Apple Pie, and the flag, etc. etc.

The nationalistic aspect of this religious love of “capitalism” is yet another major obstacle, of course. Ironically, America wasn’t a capitalist nation until after the Civil War. We had pockets of the nascent economic system prior to that, but most people lived outside of it.

WV,

I can’t remember if any comments were made directly about capitalism, but it’s pretty obvious that the writers and director see capitalism as the biggest hurdle in the way of solving the climate crisis. They also make it clear that financial elites, along with political and media elites, own the vast majority of the blame. It’s not a “blame stupid average Joe and Jane” film.

Btw, David Sirota was one of the two writers on the project. Some would put him in the leftist category.

Also, leftists have defended the movie from mainstream attacks. I posted Nathan Robinson’s review. Here’s one from Jacobin:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2022/01/adam-mckay-dont-look-up-climate-change-review

Thom Hartman has a good review as well, over at Salon. Will post the link in another post, to avoid the moderator queue.

Chase is the kind of size/speed athlete that tends to only be there in the First Round. A legit 6 footer, at 200 pounds, he ran a 4.3, with a 41 vert and an 11 foot broad. And to make it all the more impressive, he’s only 21.

Rams don’t have a shot at players like that. The guys who check all the boxes at their respective positions are gonna be gone by the time the Rams get back into Round One . . . in 2025?

Also, I always thought the Rams gave up too soon on Quinn. Glad to see him do so well. Just wish it had been for the Rams still.

Any twitter info on Rams’ health issues, post-game?

My view:

He’s not the best, or really even close, if we’re just talking about physical abilities. He’s slow. He’s never had a strong arm. It’s solid, but not strong. But he gets the ball out quickly, and, as you mentioned, he processes things really fast. He may be the best ever in that last category. A coach on the field like few others, he sees it all, has seen it all.

IMO, he needs a strong team around him, especially a good offensive line. He’s “elite” when he has great protection. Can pick apart a defense with ease. Another key: he knows his own limitations. Doesn’t try to do what he can’t do, which is another great trait. Few QBs have ever had a better handle on their own abilities. Perhaps few athletes in any sport.

I’ve always thought that Archie Manning was a great QB on a horrible team, that ruined any chances of him ever showing his skills. Put Brady on that team, and he would have been driven out of the league in a couple of years. Most likely, a ton of sacks would have crushed his development and his spirit. But Manning likely would not have had the career Brady has had, with the Patriots, and then the Bucs, because of that “know thyself” factor. Who can say? But Manning certainly had the better arm and was gifted as a runner, unlike Brady.

Bottom line: I think Brady’s football IQ is what sets him apart, and his self-knowledge. From a pure physical skills POV, he’s not even top 25 all-time.

I agree that the Rams have done pretty well with late picks. But it’s a mistake for people to think that doesn’t come at a price — if they do believe that.

How much better would they be today if they had both — early picks and those solid to excellent mid to late rounders.

And, obviously, it’s not just a matter of the players the Rams could have had. “Opportunity costs,” etc. It’s that other teams added them to their rosters. It’s a double-bad-hit.

Speaking of Gaines and SJD. I’m hoping they can re-sign the latter, and then use a four-man front, often, in 2022. How good would it be to have both Gaines and SJD on the field at the same time? Donald and, say, a beefed-up Hollins, Floyd (or rook/FA) at the other DE?

I’ve always preferred a 4-3 defense. But I know that’s not what the Rams want right now. But they have been willing, at times, to mix things up a bit. Having that flexibility, talent-wise, would be great.

Some further elaboration/refinements:

A person with plenty of capital could start a business, hire employees, but turn it into a non-capitalist enterprise, and rather easily.

Democratize the company. Relinquish control and the ability to appropriate the surplus value. Worker-control, instead, over the who, what, where, why, and when of production. Share the surplus value equally. Non-profit co-op or WSDE, etc.

Ironically, a Gates, a Bezos, or a Musk could do this easily, and still retain billions. They could set up truly non-capitalist enterprises, or go even further. Purchase islands, say, and set up an entire non-capitalist economy there. Or do this on large swaths of land inside America and elsewhere. Individual artisans, family farms, home production — the way it used to be. Plus scale up if needed to company size.

Far better still: A nation would set that up via democratic processes. No plutocrat or oligarch in the mix at all. Public monies for public benefit, controlled entirely by the public. We the People, directly.

I think Americans would end up loving this far beyond the current setup, and would vote to make it the social and legal norm. To me, that’s the way to make the transition non-violently, democratically. Start with public sector creation of non-capitalist, non-profit, publicly owned enterprises. Show they’d result in far more benefits for society, far lower prices for consumers, and far better rank and file compensation. That’s guaranteed, if there’s no private sector boot on their neck.

Great response from AOC, Zooey.

I don’t know the exact percentage, but judging from total numbers of American businesses with employees, this is probably close: Roughly 99% of the people in this country are NOT capitalists. Employees and sole proprietors are not capitalists. They may think they are, but they aren’t. It’s a bit like NFL fans who think they’re NFL players. Um, no.

An analogy to show the difference:

1. You build custom chairs for a living, with your own two hands. You don’t have any employees. You do the initial craftwork, the sales, the transport, the accounting yourself. Everything. You’re not a capitalist, even if you live in a capitalist society.

2. You hire people to build those chairs for you, and you appropriate the surplus value they generate as if you did all the work. You are a capitalist. M-C-M.

It’s not even really a matter of how much money you have, though “capital” is generally defined as money in excess of what you need to pay your bills, your debts, your necessities, so you no longer need to work for others. But you still have to employ others and appropriate the surplus value. It’s still a matter of using that capital to purchase labor power (as a commodity) to produce commodities for money.

Pre-capitalist economies are usually some variant of C-M-C. Commodities sold for Money to buy other Commodities, etc.

I love AOC.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 11 months ago by Billy_T.

Thanks, Ag.