Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_TParticipantAnother key thing they seem to be missing:
The structure of the capitalist system, with its top down, autocratic, authoritarian set up, modifies our minds and indoctrinates us from Day One into obeying authority. It teaches us, whether we realize this or not, to obey the boss. This can’t help but infect the political realm, unconsciously or consciously. It can’t help but make us far more docile and passive and far less likely to rise up and overthrow the bosses — inside or outside the economic realm. And because, in the modern world, capitalism follows us everywhere, it’s pretty hard to escape that realm even when we’re not at work, or when we go on vacation. It’s still there, surrounding us with its messages that basically say, “Obey the boss and you, too, can have this car, this TV, this new pair of shoes!!”
In short, the economic system works 24/7 to turn us all into good little subjects who have no desire to change the system that turns us into good little subjects.
Billy_TParticipantEven the “progressives” who note that the existence of billionaires is wrong . . . even they don’t seem to get the obvious answer, and the obvious root of the problem.
The root is the capitalist system itself — or any economic system that allows one person to own all the production of others, as if they did all the work themselves. Any system that makes this the legal standard is immoral and should not exist.
Any system that says, “Hey, Jane, did you know it’s legal for you to hire thousands of workers and then own and control everything they do, all their creative work, all their production, all the surplus value they generate, as if you, Jane, as if you did all the work yourself — the work of thousands, which would be impossible.”
The system itself must be abolished, and it can’t be replaced but some alternative that ends up doing the same thing, like Lenin’s state capitalism. The only way to end inequality is to fully democratize the workplace, and extend democracy to include the entire economy. The only way to end inequality is to make the stakeholders — we the people — the owners, co-equals, co-owners, with equal shares in the fruits of our labor.
Billy_TParticipantthe rams were definitely in it until the end.
i just think mcvay has to have an answer when the 3 wr formations aren’t working. shoulda gone with more 2 tight end sets.
I agree with that. You may have seen this from me earlier, but I think McVay should mix up his personnel packages, especially when the O seems clogged up and Goff is getting pounded. Two tight ends, definitely. But, I’d bring in an extra lineman or two for another package. Seven linemen, two wideouts. Six and two. Seven and two TEs, etc. etc.
Mix it up. They struggled against strong defenses with great passrushers. To me, that’s when you bring in jumbo personnel. I would, from that set, still seek to throw off the D and pass when they’re thinking run, or vice versa. I do find fault with McVay’s sameness of personnel packages. It worked well for most of the season, but the Rams should always keep the other team guessing . . .
I hope to see variety in 2019.
Billy_TParticipantExpanding on the coaching thing a bit more: I thought the game itself was awful, from the standpoint of just football. If my team weren’t in the game, and I tried to watch it, I would have turned it off before half time.
One can argue whether or not Belichick has, in the past, been an amazing coach, this or that Sunday. But when both sides play relatively lousy football for the majority of the game, I don’t buy the argument that he was “a genius” in that particular game. Or even good. He wasn’t — and that’s if we just go by the results, if we accept the premise that the coach gets the credit for what his team produces on the field.
What did his team produce? A boring, low-scoring, mistake-filled game, matched by a slightly worse game by the opposition.
As mentioned above, I’ve never really bought into that premise about coaches, and have always seen the players are far more important, win or lose. Credit or blame. But it strikes me as a contradictory argument, which I heard almost across the board on the sports shows, from pretty much every pundit, that Belichick proved his genius yet again.
How? His team played poorly overall. The Rams were slightly worse overall. That’s a pretty low bar for “genius” or even “greatness” in my view. The least lousy of the two teams on that particular Sunday?
Billy_TParticipant. the difference between mcvay and belichick might largely just be experience. then again i think the rams struck oil with mcvay. he’s potentially special.
I think it’s pretty clear McV was completely outcoached. The Patz superbowl D was designed to contain what the Rams offense did best and McV did not respond with effective adjustments. That’s coaching.
My own take is that the coaching was a draw. Poor execution by the Rams cost them the game.
Let’s say we keep the coaching choices the same, by both sides. But, instead of Cooks dropping a TD, he makes the catch. Instead of Goff taking way too long to throw to Cooks on the other play — and throwing it to his right instead of his left — he makes the throw on time for the TD.
And, instead of throwing a truly dumb pass, that ended up being an interception, he throws it out of bounds.
Of course, if he had thrown the earlier TDs, that last ditch pass wouldn’t have been necessary.
There were, of course, countless missed blocks by the O-line, and missed blitz pickups by both Rams backs.
Execution. Execution. Execution.
The D played really well, so it’s far less an issue of execution for them, but there were several missed tackles all the same. Long runs by the Pats resulted.
I’d say the coaching on both sides was, overall, subpar and uninspired. No one, IMO, clearly outcoached the other person. I’d give them both C grades, tops.
The Rams players didn’t come through on the field, when it counted. To me, that made the difference in a very close game.
Billy_TParticipantInvader,
Lotsa goods points from you, as always. And your use of the word “sync” made me think about a vital role of an NFL coach. Kinda like a conductor of an orchestra. He has to get his talent to mesh, work in harmony, “conduct” that, etc. etc. The best coaches may well be the best conductors.
Agree on the basketball stuff. With just five guys on the court, yeah, one player can really take over. Not sure if you noticed my comment on the Lakers going after Anthony Davis . . . but they must really believe one player can make all the difference too . . . well, at least when paired with Lebron. Might be forgetting other instances in the NFL where a team was willing to mortgage everything for one bloke, but right now, it evades me, outside the Ricky Williams and Herschel Walker trades.
To wrap things up: I’m not saying coaches, coaching, staff, position coaches and the like aren’t crucial. They’re very important to the success of the team. But, as mentioned, I just put a lot more on the players, one way or another, and I just think the “genius” thing is thrown around a bit too often.
I hate to admit it, but, yeah, Belichick is really, really good at what he does. As you mention, perhaps the best. Not ready to say he’s the GOAT, though his record says he is. That, of course, is another subject, another set of questions, entirely, maybe for another thread? Is it really proof, ultimately, that someone is the best coach ever because they have the most rings? I’m guessing most fans would say yes.
As you may have guessed by now, I’m not in that camp.
;>)
Great talking with ya, Invader. Hope all is well.
February 6, 2019 at 10:56 am in reply to: do you have doubts about Goff? cause this is a continuing issue in Ramsland #97874Billy_TParticipantafter starting 0-7, Goff has gone 24-7 (24-14) career with 2 playoff wins and 2 playoff losses.
Goff has consistently shown growth….
not many could pull off what Goff did in New Orleans and if Cooks makes those 2 catches in the endzone during the Super Bowl…. the Rams win.
I’m very happy with Goff….
Joe Mad,
Good points all.
And those two missed catches by Cooks . . . one of which — or was it on both — included a “no-call” that went the Pats’ way . . . Well, to me, that’s just yet another reason not to shout “Belichick is a genius!”
As poorly as the Rams played overall, they were still in the game nearly to the end, and just a coupla plays from winning it.
I just don’t see that as “genius” on behalf of the other team, and I think the Rams’ lost the Super Bowl. The Pats didn’t win it, IMO.
February 6, 2019 at 10:52 am in reply to: do you have doubts about Goff? cause this is a continuing issue in Ramsland #97873Billy_TParticipantQuick note on that trade for Goff. The Lakers have recently made several offers for Anthony Davis, each one more absurd than the last. Tons of draft picks plus pretty much every single young player with upside on the team.
Davis is excellent. But he’s not the best player in the league. I wouldn’t “mortgage the future” for him, and the Lakers’ offers are ten times that. They’re mortgaging futures that don’t even exist.
I might consider trading the farm for the Greek Freak. But not Davis. But I’ve never liked rolling the dice on one player in exchange for a half dozen or more into the future. That one player better be out of a Marvel Comic book and have super powers, or I’m not a fan of the move, in general.
February 6, 2019 at 10:47 am in reply to: do you have doubts about Goff? cause this is a continuing issue in Ramsland #97871Billy_TParticipantI have some doubts about Goff at times. I’m feeling pretty good, however, about his future.
I was dead set against the trade in the first place. Didn’t want the Rams to give up so much to move up for either Wentz or Goff. His rookie season basically reconfirmed that view, but his second season made me question my own questions about the trade.
For most of this past year, I thought, “It turned out that was a good trade. The Rams have arguably the best QB in the NFL, at least this season.”
Then, he regressed a bit. In my view, he played like a rookie in the Super Bowl, not like the guy who might well have been the best QB in football for a large patch of the regular season.
Thing is, he turns just 25 for next season. He’ll be just 25! So, he’s gonna get better, at least if he has help around him and the O-line doesn’t deteriorate. From my watching of QBs over the years, the one thing that can most easily derail the “natural” improvements with age . . . is a failed offensive line. There are other factors that can hinder or help a QB, of course. But I can’t think of one more important than keeping the QB upright.
Oh, and I still don’t like his throwing motion at all. It’s kinda like a towel whip. Too much wasted motion and time setting up to make the throw. I’d try to ease him, very carefully, over time, into a tighter motion and quicker delivery. But they have to do this with a lot of care.
Billy_TParticipantDespite the lack of the Rams actually doing what they had done for the better part of the year . . . despite the absence of physical magic on the field . . . they were still in the game nearly to the end.
I just don’t see that as “genius” by Belichick. Not even remotely close.
Any game that could have gone either way, IMO, can’t be assessed like that. By definition. It’s not “genius” to escape with a win, when a fraction of an inch here, or a fraction of a second there, would have yielded a different result. As in, that supposed “genius” was entirely at the mercy of plays and series of plays that literally could have gone either way.
To be honest, I wouldn’t give any coach the title of “genius.” Not one in my roughly 52 years of following the sport. It’s all relative from that point on. Are some coaches better than others? Obviously, yes. Are some coaches head and shoulders better? Again, obviously yes. I’d put folks like Belichick, Lombardi, Gibbs, Shula, Landry, Allen and perhaps Vermeil up there. But it’s more for what they got out of their players than from their Xs and Os, their chess games, etc.
To me, the game of football at the NFL level is far more about brute force, speed, agility and just flat out physical superiority — on the field — than anything else. If you have superior physical talent, you’re far more likely to win in the NFL than if your coach is a great chess player. Everyone would love to have both, of course. But given the choice? I’d take the physical talent over the great chess player eight days a week.
Billy_TParticipantwho would that be then?
i’m sorry. i hate belichick as much as anybody. but 9 superbowl appearances and 6 victories?
and this last one with brady playing like crap?
he’s proven his greatness. i mean he’s a bastard, but he’s gotten his teams to play at a high level for years.
probably the greatest dynasty in the modern era of sports i’d say.
i’d be happy if mcvay could achieve even half of his success.
i still think mcvay got outcoached. the more i read the more i’m convinced. he’s like a boxer with a great right hand but once you figure it out you can negate the right. and he’s got nothing to counter with. he’s gotta figure it out. i think he will.
belichick is the opposite. his teams are able to adapt. but the guy’s been coaching forever. his resume is older than mcvay.
mcvay has to come up with a counter to the 11 personnel. teams will be studying tape of the superbowl, the chi game. the det game. the phi game. he’s gotta come up with an answer or the rams will regress. i think he will.
I’m perfectly comfortable being on an island on this one.
To me, players, on the field, win or lose games, not coaches. Yes, coaches have a very big role, but the role of the players, in the moment, down to those split seconds and fractions of inches, matter far more. Their athleticism is the difference. Not chess games by the coaches. That’s my take.
And in this particular game, the Rams weren’t getting it done from a kinetic, athletic point of view. I have no doubt that McVay drew up plays that could have worked, if the players on the field had just done what they had done throughout the majority of the season. They didn’t. Goff, for instance, had too many poorly thrown passes, passed into traffic once too many times, took too long in the pocket, and his O-line didn’t give him the time he needed. There were no magical plays — that I remember — from Rams players who had consistently made them during the season . . . like Everett’s tight-rope run along the sidelines for a TD, or Gurley’s version of that on the opposite side of the field.
Coaches don’t draw that up on the blackboard. Players either make magic on the field or they don’t. The team with the most athletic moments wins. Not the team with the best X and O guy.
Just my take.
-
This reply was modified 5 years, 7 months ago by Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantI’d also say that the Pats weren’t the best team in football this past year, at any time along the way.
The Rams had their time as the best. The Chiefs, Saints, Bears, Chargers, even the Colts for a stretch. I can’t think of a single stretch for the Pats. If Belicheck were a “genius,” that would not have been the case.
This all probably sounds like sour grapes, but I thought this prior to the Super Bowl. To be honest, I think the Rams had fallen back a bit heading into the Dallas game and weren’t even the best in the NFC. They showed they were back in the hunt again in that game. Fell back a bit against the Saints. It was highly questionable, to me, going into the Super Bowl, whether or not the Rams were the team that should be representing the NFC. Not because of “the call.” Eff all of that nonsense. But because their offense seemed to have regressed on balance.
The Rams of the first seven or eight games? Goff in those games? Best team in the NFL, easily. Best QB in the league. But not later. They lost something along the way after a dozen games or so.
My guess is that McVay will figure this out this offseason.
Billy_TParticipantA play here, and a play there. Exactly. It’s even tighter than that. It’s literally a game of inches and smaller units than that . . . and split seconds, and smaller than that. Defenders missing a pass by a fraction of an inch, less than a split second late, early for an interception. No coach can dictate those things or gameplan for them. IMO, saying a coach is a “genius” because he barely wins a game of such tiny, fractional happenstances . . . . Well, I see that as hyperbole.
The wondrous thing about football is its physicality in the moment, and how so often “anything can happen.” The cliches have a basis in fact, especially “On any given Sunday.”
I’ve always put far, far more stock in what players do on the field than any coaching game of chess. Yeah, the latter is critical. But the players make the game what it is. They make plays by going against script, not by following what the coach draws up on the blackboard.
To me, Belichek is good, not “great.” And he’s no “genius.” Far too many close games that could have gone either way. Personally, I reserve the “genius” level for someone who dominates, obliterates, wipes out his opponents.
Billy_TParticipantKupp also wins contested catches — a lot. That’s Cooks’ biggest flaw. He rarely does.
He obviously has super speed, is very quick, gutsy, will go over the middle. But if the ball is contested, he’s generally not coming down with it.
Goff throws a lot of passes that generate that scenario, too. He often throws with a defender already on the receiver, or through tight windows where they get there with the pass. More than most QBs, he needs receivers that win 50/50 passes.
Kupp was the guy for that. Reynolds, despite his height, really isn’t that guy yet. Though I like what I’ve seen from him otherwise, and I think he runs hard after the catch, even with some violence.
This offseason will be crucial. I think they need a serious revaluation of their personnel and how best to optimize their talents. For most of the season, they had remarkable success. But against really good defenses . . . they mostly struggled.
Billy_TParticipantThe Gurley thing is wearing on me. If he is really fine and you don’t use him that is inept coaching and now the Superbowl is over there is no reason to hide an injury to anyone yet both McVay and Gurley continue to deny.
He’s very likely hurting.
I’ve forgotten the game, but I think it happened when he was tackled pretty far out of bounds, pulled down from the neck with his legs, and especially his ankles, out of whack.
I’m guessing it’s a high ankle sprain. They’re notorious for lingering.
He was hurt initially in the Oakland game.
Sounds like a minor nagging issue. It’s not an INJURY per se. No one is denying anything–they have already talked about inflammation. Sometimes he can go, sometimes he’s less effective. There was an MRI so there’s no structural damage. That leaves a lot of possibilities…tendinitis, a floating fragment, a lingering sprain. All of which means he can play but not be 100%.
ZN,
Yeah. That makes sense. More and more people are writing about that.
We can only hope that he heals over the offseason, and that this can somehow be managed better than this past season. It may not be possible. But the Rams need a relatively healthy Gurley if they want to maximize this offense.
On my island of misfit toys again, but I think McVay should at least consider some jumbo sets next year. Not saying go with that only. Mix it in. An extra lineman or two. Perhaps three TEs. Mix it up.
Analysts keep telling us that he gives the same look but does variations from there. Martz gave different looks, with mostly the same personnel for each of those looks. Maybe a bit of both?
Billy_TParticipantI watch Morning Joe and Nicole Wallace a lot. The author makes great points. While both of these shows are hosted by conservatives, and usually have conservative guests, when they do have Dems on . . . um, yeah. It’s striking how they now back the FBI and the Security State, when they were once at least a bit conflicted about them. Not all of the Dems, of course. Mainstream Dems have, in general, been “soft” neocons to the GOP’s “hard” neocons. Again, in general.
There is a tendency to just take the opposite position to Trump’s. And while he’s almost always wrong on the issues, incredibly ignorant about context, history and its effects, he does sometimes . . . for the wrong reasons . . . come out on the correct side.
Like wanting to get out of Afghanistan, Syria and negotiate with NK. But he’s warmongering against Iran and Venezuela, and supports the Saudi war in Yemen, plus he’s basically a blind supporter of Israel. And his Muslim ban and endless attacks on immigrants to our South is just straight out of the Nazi playbook.
I hope someday America has an administration that calls for an end to empire, period. No more wars, coups, covert ops, etc. etc. etc. Not selectively hawkish, like Trump. Flat out not hawkish, period.
I’m biased, but I think that will only happen if leftists run things.
February 4, 2019 at 11:46 am in reply to: JD Salinger's "hidden" writings to be published soon. #97787Billy_TParticipantAlso really looking forward to the sequel of The Handmaid’s Tale, by Margaret Atwood. Will be published in the fall, if memory serves.
Finally got around to reading it last year. Had previously read other books by Atwood. It deserves its “classic” reputation.
The Hulu series is really good too, but left the novel as a source fairly early on.
Wonder how much, if any, the TV series will influence her sequel.
Billy_TParticipantThe Gurley thing is wearing on me. If he is really fine and you don’t use him that is inept coaching and now the Superbowl is over there is no reason to hide an injury to anyone yet both McVay and Gurley continue to deny.
He’s very likely hurting.
I’ve forgotten the game, but I think it happened when he was tackled pretty far out of bounds, pulled down from the neck with his legs, and especially his ankles, out of whack.
I’m guessing it’s a high ankle sprain. They’re notorious for lingering.
Billy_TParticipantWade’s defense really showed up during the playoffs. Thirteen points for Brady, in the Super Bowl — are you kidding me?
Ah well.
They need to have Kupp healthy next year. They need to have Gurley healthy next year. And they need to get some depth on the OLine. Thats about it.
w
vAll of that is true.
I’m hoping the Rams go in a bit of a different direction on defense next season.
Get bigger up the gut. Find a massive hogmolly for DT, and much heftier ILB, and a Strong Safety big enough to play linebacker, and fast enough to play corner.
Bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic.
To me, their smaller linebackers, in general, especially Barron, haven’t even given them the usual benefits of that smaller size: Speed, agility and great coverage ability. I like Littleton, and he played really well in the Super Bowl and in several other games this season. But he gets “beat” too often as well.
I’d rather see the smaller speed guys as outside backers, and much bigger run-stuffers inside. Ideally, of course, they’d find hidden gems who can do it all. But that’s rare.
The offense needs major upgrades along the line, in my view. They wore down by the time the Super Bowl came along. It just seemed like their blocking abilities disappeared.
As mentioned last night . . . the game baffled me.
;>)
Billy_TParticipantZn,
Could it be both/and?
Out-coached and out-played?
Chicken and egg follows, etc.
There were cases, as Romo pointed out, that Goff had opens looks and went elsewhere for incompletions. This tells me, at least on those plays, it wasn’t the call, it was the execution. Cooks dropped a couple too. A huge shame, cuz on those passes, Goff actually was on target.
So when Goff was on, a receiver was off. When receivers were open, Goff looked elsewhere. When Goff dropped back, he rarely had enough time. Is that suddenly about coaching, in that moment, or is that a failure to hold one’s block?
These are highly paid professionals, playing in the game of games. They obviously know how to block. They obviously know the plays. But in too many cases today, in this game, they didn’t get the job done.
Yeah, some of that is gonna be on McVay and company. But they could come up with the most perfect playcall in the universe, and if the players don’t do their part, it dies.
Both/and? Either/or? I go with the former, with the emphasis on the players.
Billy_TParticipantI’m reading folks say this was a matter of coaching. That McVay was out-coached by B.
Not my take at all.
You mean me. We disagree, but that is no biggy.
No. Wasn’t trying to be coy, etc. I’ve seen it on other sites. That seems to be an early . . . I don’t know, consensus, so far. The quick read this evening at least among a lot of folks.
Billy_TParticipantReally not a game I’d be proud of winning both teams sucked the pats sucked slightly less but still I doubt pats fans will watch it over and over again.The OL was awful Gurley took his millions and disappeared but next year will be interesting.
Agreed.
I think a true fan of the game, who wasn’t rooting for either team, would say, meh, to the whole thing.
Extremely disappointing as a Rams fan of more than 50 years. But I’m guessing football fans, without a horse in the race, weren’t impressed either.
Again, I’m just baffled by what happened, or didn’t happen.
Billy_TParticipantI don’t know how to tell what’s on the coach. The Rams OL got overwhelmed all game long, and that’s that.
And Cooks lost two TD passes.
If you had told me the Patriots would score only 13 points before the game, I would have taken that happily. The Rams defense really played well.
Yeah, it’s pretty difficult to suss that out. How do we know if it’s a lousy play call, or a lousy game-plan, versus just a failure to execute, one way or another?
We’ve all seen what appear to be rotten calls end up as TDs, cuz some player makes a great play . . . and we’ve seen what appear to be good calls fail. All things in between that, etcetera.
Yeats and his how to tell the dancer from the dance.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43293/among-school-children
I have no clue. Which is probably the case in too many, well, um, cases.
But my first impression is that the Rams offense, on the field, just didn’t have it, and I don’t understand that. They weren’t the same team I watched from September until, basically, the Saints game.
I don’t get it. I don’t get how an offense can be so dominant for 95% of the season and then play like that in the Super Bowl. It baffles me. It’s not as if the Pats were world-beaters on D during the regular season. They weren’t.
I’m beyond puzzled.
Billy_TParticipantI’m reading folks say this was a matter of coaching. That McVay was out-coached by B.
Not my take at all.
I put this on the players. On their total lack of execution. I think the O-line was atrocious, failed to open holes (with few exceptions) for the backs, and let the Pats overwhelm Goff. Goff, for his part, played terribly too, IMO. A reversion to his rookie year. He was off on most of his throws, and made too few good throws to matter.
The D? They played really well, and Peters really surprised me. Of course, when the offense punts the first nine or ten times, that means the D is on the field too long — waaay too long. So it eventually gave up key plays. But 13 points? To Brady? Sheebus but that should be more than enough to win for the Rams.
My take? The offense was horrifically bad, on the field. I don’t pin this one on the coaches. The players lost this, in my view.
All of that said, I see the Rams as only getting better. There is no reason why they can’t make it to the Super Bowl next season. They just need to match their regular season play in the post season.
Billy_TParticipantBruce deserves it.
A pet peeve of mine. Lynn Swan’s inclusion. He doesn’t have the numbers.
116 games, 336 receptions, 5462 yards, 16.3 avg per catch, and 51 TDs.
Compare this with Bruce’s numbers:
223 games, 1024 receptions, for 15208 yards, 14.9 avg per catch, and 91 TDs.
Not seeing Swan as HOF worthy. Yeah, he made some great catches, but pretty much every receiver in the NFL has done that, at one time or another.
Billy_TParticipantFinished Episode 4 from Season 2.
It’s a really difficult thing to do, to make a warrior drama — the Dark Ages equivalent of “Sword and Sandals” perhaps — moving at times. But it does. It’s violent, with its battle scenes and moments of revenge, but it still manages to be emotionally satisfying.
Game of Thrones makes that happen consistently. The Last Kingdom does as well.
I like another aspect, though it’s a minor thing overall. When the warriors journey across Britain, and they reach a town big enough to warrant a name of historical note, the graphics first display what appears to be its Saxon name — though I’m not positive about this. That name transitions quickly to the modern name we recognize. Like Winchester, York and so on.
Pretty cool. I like the music too. Kind of Celtic Twilight, with an odd trace of ancient Asian shamans, or something like that. Understated, though. Never intrusive.
Billy_TParticipantOn Bradford…I think that guy is the Anti-Foles.
Nick Foles is an Adequate Guy who benefited from every imaginable circumstance. A guy who was always in the right place at the right time. Everything outside his control always came together for that bastard. Luckiest guy in the world. And that’s not a knock on Foles personally. I like the guy…you know…on that level. Nice guy. Good for him.
Bradford is just the opposite of that.
Bradford was a very talented guy who just always got the short straw in the NFL.
He couldn’t throw a fade. That’s the worst I can say about the guy. That pass eluded him…at least in his time with the Rams. I didn’t watch him after that. But that was his limitation while I watched him. But he did everything else. And did it well.
He was fucked over by injuries and limited talent around him. That’s Sam Bradford in my book.
On the 5th weapon…I agree. A TE would just make this offense completely unstoppable.
I think the Rams have bigger needs…as you say…DT, LB, OL…but if they landed a blue chip TE…the Rams would score on every fucking possession.
Good points.
Bradford’s lack of “help” was a huge factor. Yes. If we can play some “what ifs,” I think he would be really, really good with this current offense. I also think McVay would probably be able to “fix” the attitude issues, and fire him up. Hell, just having Gurley, Woods, Kupp and Cooks around him would likely do that.
Agree with you about the fade pass. But I think he could work around that with this current lineup.
The old saw “Timing is everything” . . . You’re right. Bradford was pretty unlucky when it comes to when he played for the Rams.
Billy_TParticipantPS: I think Bradford had the potential to be truly great. IMO, he just lacked a passion for the game, and often seemed listless to me, sometimes appearing almost defeated before the play even started.
i would disagree with that. no one keeps coming back from injury after injury like he has without being passionate.
my problem with bradford was he was very mechanical. just not very fluid. he had an arm but not much touch. his pocket presence was lacking. maybe even a little bit stiff.
goff on the other hand is very fluid. whether it’s throwing long or short or with touch. moving around in the pocket or rolling out. he’s just so natural at it. it’s beautiful to see.
No biggie, but we disagree here. I remember watching Bradford — and this was before the injuries hit — and thinking, “He looks defeated on the sidelines, and takes his merry old time coming up to the line of scrimmage, still showing a defeated body-language and manner.”
It’s certainly possible that inside, his competitive fires were burning. But on TV, it seemed the opposite to me, with few exceptions.
I just never saw him visibly in the “must win now!!” mode. It was almost always “we’ve already lost!” mode to me.
Just my take.
Billy_TParticipantCould they lure another receiver via free agency? Someone who would be even better than Woods, Kupp or Cooks? As in, push all of the current wideouts down one notch? Just my take, but I’d love to see them find a really big receiver, with enough speed to gain separation, a huge wingspan for a dominant “catch radius,” and the skill set to win contested passes.
They could for around 18 M, which will probably be the going rate for FA WRs in 2019.
And, they are already pushing the limit in terms of big contracts. They’re getting to the point where they will be lucky to sign MOST (and certainly not all) of their own internal FAs (including Goff). Adding expensive outside FAs may be too much of a stretch for them.
Yeah, the price tag is a bit much. And, when I really think about it, they need help on the O-line more, and at DT, ILB, CB and Safety.
That extra wideout is a luxury, basically. Upgrades at the other spots are necessities — especially with the aging O-line.
But I’m greedy. So I want total offensive dominance!!
;>)
Billy_TParticipantOn Youngblood. If the Rams want this, no one should be able to stand in their way. That’s flat out wrong.
When they win tomorrow — not if — it should be their decision, not the league’s.
. . . .
From an earlier conversation about QBs. I started rooting for the Rams in 1966/67, so Roman Gabriel was the QB I took to most. I see the first as the best, so unlike a lot of Rams fans, I put him above Warner. Didn’t get to see Waterfield or Van Brocklin, so I can’t really do them justice. But I’ve followed all the Rams’ QBs from Gabriel on.
Yes, Goff may surpass all of them. Obviously, I hope he does. But my guy right now is still Gabriel. It didn’t hurt that he also starred in The Undefeated with John Wayne and Merlin Olsen — back in 1969, if memory serves. But I think he had the most talent of any Rams’ QB from the 1960s right up to the present.
PS: I think Bradford had the potential to be truly great. IMO, he just lacked a passion for the game, and often seemed listless to me, sometimes appearing almost defeated before the play even started. Just my dime-store reading, but I think his head was what prevented “greatness,” not his physical skillset. And then the injuries pretty much sealed the deal.
-
This reply was modified 5 years, 7 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
