wv wrote:

Mahomes has been great, Brees has been great, some others.

But they have great supporting casts.

I think Aaron Donald has been doin it alone out there, week after week. Double teams, triple teams, down after down. With the Rules protecting offense and QBs.

Take him off the Rams and I dunno if they even have a winning record. They might be 8-8 or somethin.

Its very close, but I would vote for Aaron Donald. Not because I’m a ram fan, just because of his play.

w
v

I agree with all of that. I think he should win, too.

But I’m starting to think the Rams have another guy, on offense, who should be considered on a team basis. Not MVP of the league, necessarily. But MVP of the Rams.

Robert Woods. I think he’s special, and he isn’t getting anywhere near enough credit. IMO, one of the most important FA acquisitions in a long, long time.

But, yeah, Donald is HOF caliber, easily. He should be first ballot. Too bad Quinn got hurt and they let him go. The two of them together would have brought back visions of the Fearsome Foursome. Deacon Jones and Merlin. Different styles, of course. But the same effect.

Hope all is well in the mountain state.

That was good. Informative. Serious discussion, on point.

NFL-focused TV shows seem not to do that anymore. They want to “entertain” us, and seem to have a very low opinion of our intelligence these days.

Going down memory lane a bit, I remember really liking Frank Gifford’s pregame show when I was a kid. Serious, intelligent, covered everything of import, at least to me. This was before he joined MNF. I also really liked Brookhiser and Summarall on the games themselves. They never tried to dumb things down for the audience and made the games seem essential, dramatically relevant. If memory serves, and it often doesn’t, I think CBS dumped Brookhiser because he questioned the refs in one game. There was probably a lot more to it than that, but I was greatly disappointed when they dumped him. I think Madden replaced him, and that may have been a turning point for the quality of coverage.

Madden “entertained” the audience. He treated the audience as if it couldn’t handle serious discussion of the game.

The morning show on NFL network is unwatchable for me, because it’s all “entertainment” now. Very low expectation that the audience can handle anything above a third grade level, it seems.

Oh, well.

Again, good podcast.

I’m forgetting exactly which QBs do this really well, but it really does tend to kill the pass-rush. They basically get the snap and almost in the same motion, pass it. Usually quick crossing patterns. I just don’t see the Rams doing this, though, yes, Goff/McVay have tried shorter passes, and faster drop backs at times.

But that one-motion thing? I just don’t remember seeing it, and it’s almost always really effective against pass-rushing terrors — up the middle or from the edge.

It needs to be incorporated into the offense, with or without jumbo sets, though I think it would be most effective with at least an extra lineman.

Looking ahead to next year, I think the Rams seriously need an upgrade at center, and I’d prefer Blythe as a backup, though he’s played well overall. Sullivan, however, is probably the weak-link, and Whitworth (37) tends to decline as the season goes on, which is understandable. It may be too much for one offseason, but the Rams need help at LT, C and G, IMO — and better depth at wideout. On defense, it’s even worse: DT, ILB, OLB, corner and safety. I have no idea how this can be done under the cap, and they don’t have the draft picks, so it’s gonna take some real magic from the GM on down. Perhaps a miracle or two.

All of that said, I’m still very high on this team, present and future, etc.

Lots of good points in this thread. Taken together, it seems kinda obvious that it’s a lot of things. Injuries, declining o-line play, Goff making bad decisions at key times, some stubbornness when it comes to personnel groupings and playcalls, etc.

Not sure which matters most, or more, or more often, etc. etc. But it’s pretty safe to say that, at least on offense, if the line isn’t protecting the QB, the offense will struggle.

Which makes me think of this: Theoretically, at least, making major acquisitions to upgrade talent should — it should — also improve depth. Again, this strikes me as obvious. If you can upgrade a position, you move your former starter to “depth,” so, logically, you’ve just improved it. But I think McVay may have offset that somewhat by — especially along the o-line — keeping fewer guys for that unit that he should have, given such a long season. Same may hold for wideouts. And when two of your upgrades are past their primes, with one pushing 40, this is especially risky.

Bringing in key guys for upgrades only improves “depth” if you decide to keep adequate numbers there, and work them in to the degree possible. Play them when the score allows this. I don’t think the Rams did, and I think they could have brought in more competition last offseason too. Wideouts and o-line, primarily.

I think it’s tough to try to find a common denominator for the two losses, primarily because the victors are so incredibly different. But, the relatively “quiet” performance of Donald is probably as good as any.

My thing, however, at this point in the season — and I’ve watched all but one game — is this:

The Rams are making a huge mistake by keeping to one personnel grouping for the vast majority of their offensive plays. It’s especially a mistake when they face a good to great defense, and that kind of team seems to become even harder to defeat in the playoffs.

I’ve noticed announcers in pretty much every game — at least until Chicago — rave about the deceptive simplicity of the Rams’ offense. Three wide outs, single back, for more than 90% of the calls. The announcers seem to love this. Me? I hate the simplicity and think it’s a serious mistake.

IMO, whenever the Rams face a team with a really good pass-rush, and/or one with a great defense overall, they need to change up their personnel groupings. Big time. They also need to do this when it looks like the passing game is being stopped. Go to several other options . . . like, one or two additional O-line guys, two tight ends, a D-line guy as fullback — I’d use a second-stringer for that (Tanzel Smart, perhaps), etc. etc. I’d love to see the Rams stack the line with hogmollies and run Gurley, again and again, then do the play-action, if it makes sense at that point. Set it up. You can’t set up play-action when you’re not running the ball, or can’t, and the Rams oftentimes fail at running the ball because they won’t go away from their three-wideouts.

They need to show all kinds of different looks to the defense, especially when they face a really good one, or are having trouble offensively for any reason. Change things up, and rely on physics. Mass is likely more effective in moving the defense than skinny wideouts.

;>)

OT/

Recently read Adichie’s Half of a Yellow Sun, and thought it amazing. Profoundly moving and powerful. I remember you had recommended her, so I checked the book out of the local library when I saw it. Definitely makes me want to read her other works.

She’s a master story-teller, and I learned a ton at the same time.

McVay is an excellent coach. He’s already proven himself. However . . . I don’t think he likes to move off his gameplan when circumstances are demanding that he does just that. In this game, the Bears were crushing the passing attack, primarily via pressure, but also via really good pass coverage. So, the logical thing to do is go to the run.

Which also brings up this other piece of stubbornness, IMO: The Rams don’t suit up enough O-line guys. My own preference would be for that to happen and for them to play O-line guys (at times) instead of TEs/WRs, much the same way the Bears did on that scoring play to their O-line guy. D-linemen too. Go all hogmolly as far as the rules allow. Beat the Bears front — or anyone else’s — with muscle, size, weight, etc. Goal line, 3rd down, even 1st down. In my view, the Rams are too stubborn regarding their three-receiver sets. They’re starting to appear to me as too “finesse” at the worst times.

Two other quick observations: The experiment with DBs as ILBs is a dismal failure. At least with the personnel the Rams currently have. They desperately need actual inside backers with size, weight, muscle and serious run-stuffing abilities. Barron’s gotta go, and Littleton should be on the outside. Yeah, it’s old-school, but it was the deal in the NFL for ages for a reason. Big guys for up the gut; smaller, swifter guys for the outside. The Rams seem to do the reverse. It’s not working.

Finally, the Rams don’t seem to have quick strike passing plays, and they need them. Not thinking of the Bears in this case, but NFL teams can often defeat pass-rushers with a quick snap, turn and fire kind of passing play. Goff almost never does this. He’s almost always taking deep drops, staying in the pocket too long, and then throwing. Best way to beat a pass-rush like the Bears’ is either via the run or very, very quick passing. McVay and company basically ignore both options . . .

I was absolutely giddy when they tied it up at 35. But extremely disappointed in the end result. This team is gonna give me a heart attack.

;>)

Peters is terrible. Seriously. It may well be he’s still hurt, but he can’t play right now. He gets burned way too often and doesn’t make the plays to even that out. That’s supposed to be his thing. He gets burned, but makes so many great plays it’s a net plus. But not this year. He’s a net liability for the Rams.

I think the Rams should have brought this kid in for a look: Obi Melifonwu. Oakland waived him injured, but he’s trying to catch on with another team, and is only 24.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obi_Melifonwu

Yeah, I know. Combine workouts don’t tell us anywhere close to actual production in the field — which he had in college. But the kid is a freak. Superhuman atheticism for 6’4″ and 225.

Loved the Malcolm Brown play along the sideline. One of the most athletic plays I’ve ever seen. I think Aikman is right. He could start for several NFL teams right now. Rams did well to find him.

Overall, I think the offense did what they needed to do to win. The defense wasn’t up to the task — obviously. If you score 35 points, you should win pretty much every time. It’s time for the Rams’ D to have one of those “players only” meetings . . .

zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

Littleton’s surprisingly excellent play as a starter stabilizes one of the two inside positions, but they still need to figure out the other one.

One minor disagreement. I think Barron is exactly what they want at that spot. Wade has never gone the big run stuffer route. The Barron spot is always manned by a Barron-type. If they replace Barron it will always be by a Barron-type, a coverage LB who can blitz. Barron of course made one of their big plays yesterday when he got the safety. Not a bad big play in a game they won by a 2-point margin.

I can see that. And their run-D has gotten better since he returned. But can they afford him? Isn’t he up for a new contract soon?

I think he’s good, but I also think the position can be upgraded. But, yeah, Phillips does seem like the converted safety type.

Speaking of which . . . he seems to run against so many conventions. Personally, I prefer a 4/3, but the usual 3/4 types are tall, speedy edge guys, bigger than 4/3 linebackers, but not quite as big as typical 4/3 ends, and then two shorter, but fairly big run-stuffers inside. Of course, he had to work with the guys he inherited, but it does seem he bucks convention when personnel is his call. The Rams really don’t have a true NT, for instance, and both ends are really DTs. Traditionally, the NT would be a guy like Ngata, a hogmolly, and one end would be a speed-rusher, with his DE mate especially good at stuffing the run and taking on the TE/OT blocks.

It seems to work, at least in the second half. But they do still have some kinks to iron out. Talib coming back will be huge . . .

zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

The future is seriously bright for the Rams.

Good to see you posting BT. Glad you saw the game. It was a tough one, but, in the end those are more memorable.

Hope all is well with you.

….

Thanks, ZN. Rough year, to be sure. But Sundays with the Rams is a real uplift. Greatly look forward to it each week, and I’m loving rooting for an excellent team.

To be honest, I’d be happy if they were just competitive this year. I didn’t need them to be this good. Knowing they have a very young core, and a great young coach, and an organization that finally seems to know what they’re doing . . . . all of that would have sufficed.

But they’re arguably the best team in football at the half-way mark. At least Top Three. And they have a great shot at the Lombardi this season. It’s just an amazing turn-around.

Let’s see: Goff turns 25 next season, as does Gurley. Cooks and Kupp turn 26; Woods and Higbee, 27; Everett 25. A bit of age on the line, but some solid prospects waiting in the wings . . . Defense, same thing. A few smart FA signings in the offseason and they take care of most of that, and then there’s the draft. I honestly see the Rams as getting better through at least 2020. As in, they’re built for a nice run now. Potential three-peat, though the NFL is set up to make that next to impossible.

Again, their future is really bright. More than bright.

They did well for playing an away game.

What? They were at home? Really? Then why all the screaming GB fans, drowning out everyone else!!

;>)

Love that they won. Love that they’re 8 and 0. Donald and special teams came through again for them, and I think they may have to find a way to get Reynolds more involved, even when Kupp comes back. He’s a keeper.

Goff seems to have returned to earth a bit after a crazy start. I was thinking, after the first few games, he was really living up to his “first pick” status, and I’ve been too hard on him. Just throwing the ball lights out back then, and he seemed to have fixed his biggest problem over the previous two seasons (IMO): not leading his receivers. But the last two games . . . he’s playing good enough to win, but not “first pick” good.

Hope he turns this around.

Some other brief observations:

Cooks is an excellent receiver, but he’s not a jump ball guy. He’s not going to win many contested throws. You have to utilize his crazy speed and quickness and throw him open. He’s not the receiver who wins with DBs draped over him.

Not sure if Peters is still hurt, but he has not impressed since the injury. Hill is a liability in coverage too. I think the Rams still have some work to do in the offseason at DB, even if all starters return healthy. But the great thing about this team is their core is really young, and free agents are going to want to come to LA. So they could get even better in 2019, which is scary for the league. DBs, edge rushers, TE . . . and I’d bring in some young depth for the o-line too — FA and draft. The future is seriously bright for the Rams.

Marx said,

The ideas of the ruling class, in every epoch, are the ideas that rule.

This may sound way to pat . . . but I think it’s true: The only way to end those official narratives is to end the class system itself.

nittany ram wrote:

“I’m a staff writer at the socialist magazine Jacobin and a member of DSA, and here’s the truth: In the long run, democratic socialists want to end capitalism.”
Link: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/first-person/2018/8/1/17637028/bernie-sanders-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-cynthia-nixon-democratic-socialism-jacobin-dsa

IMO, a huge problem with this discussion, nationally, is that far too many Americans think “capitalism” is just a synonym for trade, commerce or business. It’s not. It’s a specific and unique form/mode of trade, commerce and business. It’s an unprecedented mode of production, and the first one in world history to become the One and Only.

If we get rid of it, we don’t get rid commerce, etc. etc. We do commerce under different rules, with different internal logic, and especially, different controlling interests.

If we go the socialist route, that control goes from a tiny sliver of the nation to all of us, literally. It goes from a fundamentally autocratic, authoritarian and anti-democratic system of control to a fully democratic one.

America desperately needs to have a conversation about what capitalism is and isn’t, and how it came to be dominant. Without that, even the word “socialism” will keep scaring people to death.

waterfield wrote:

Then what is Democratic Socialism as pronounced by Bernie Sanders ? Seriously, I don’t really understand clearly what it is.

People will argue terms, and not all leftists even agree about them. But my own view is that Sanders pushes for “social democracy,” and not “democratic socialism.”

The latter means no more capitalism, period. It means we extend democracy to include the economy — which erases the capitalist system — and we democratize the workplace. It also means we the people, not the state, own the means of production.

Ironically, “social democracy” allows for some state control over the economy, and retains capitalism, thus making it more of a Big Gubmint affair. It doesn’t extend democracy to include the economy, or democratize the workplace. This is “ironic” because going further left actually means far less “state control” — thus going against standard received wisdom. It means actual full-scale and applied democracy instead, which would be a first in the modern world.

A good article on the differences here from Jacobin:

Social Democracy Is Good. But Not Good Enough. By Joseph M. Schwartz Bhaskar Sunkara

wv wrote:

socializm:https://portside.org/2018-08-10/socialism-and-liberal-imagination

“….In 1936, as Roosevelt was running for reelection, former New York Governor Al Smith—once FDR’s great political benefactor, by then turned sour adversary—accused him of carrying out most of the demands of the Socialist platform. But card-carrying Socialists rebuffed the growing conservative effort to brand the New Deal as “socialist”: Norman Thomas, making his third bid for the presidency as the party’s standard-bearer, took to the airwaves to stress the point. If Roosevelt had carried out the Socialist platform, Thomas famously remarked, “he [had] carried it out on a stretcher.”

But Thomas was not the only Socialist to weigh in on the question….see link…”

If FDR had carried out the socialist agenda — and the timing was absolutely perfect for that, given the Depression — we’d no longer have a capitalist economy.

He saved capitalism. His New Deal was basically a centrist compromise between a resurgent left and the center-right Establishment, and it did make a positive difference. But it wasn’t “socialist,” except in the sense that some socialist ideas were implemented.

But as long as capitalism remains the economic engine, a society can’t be called a socialist society, by definition. It can be a “social democracy,” but not “socialist,” and there’s a difference.