they need to replace janoris. they’ll most likely have to make do with him this season. but i fully expect him to be replaced in 2016.

another article.

Bernie: More pressure on STL effort to keep Rams

By Bernie Miklasz

Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times wrote about the specifics of Stan Kroenke’s stadium plans for Inglewood. And really, the plans are spectacular. You can read about them by clicking Farmer’s piece and/or the Associated Press story we posted on STLtoday.

My takeaways from the story:

• If the plan is executed as drawn up, it would be the most dynamic stadium the NFL. Actually, it would be the most dynamic venue in North American professional sports.

• The stadium is being designed to accommodate two NFL franchises. Which shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. It would be short-sighted and stupid to build a place in LA that could only house one franchise.

• This only reaffirms something I’ve written a couple of times. I know that the Raiders and Chargers have gone in together for a stadium project in suburban Carson. But it’s possible for Kroenke to split one of the teams off from the other, enticing one to join him in Inglewood. It would benefit Kroenke to have the only NFL team in town — but if it helps him get the Rams to LA by procuring a second franchise for his venue, then why wouldn’t he do that? What remains to be determined is whether San Diego and Oakland can put together new-stadium projects to keep their franchises.

• The Kroenke stadium plan will surely impress his fellow NFL owners. This one seemingly checks all of the boxes and has the glamorous, glitzy, over-the-top element that’s right for the Los Angeles style. To return to the nation’s second-largest market, the NFL wants more than a functional, solid, stadium. The one in Los Angeles must be something special. By the design appearance, this one qualifies.

• This is mere speculation on my part … but I’d have to think the detailed unveiling of the Kroenke stadium could sway some owners’ votes to his side, should it come down to that.

• I don’t know what the stadium in suburban Carson will look like (in terms of specifics) but I find it hard to believe it will top Kroenke’s palace.

• The Kroenke stadium in LA is more grandiose and impressive than the proposed stadium in St. Louis. But that’s inevitable given that Inglewood is a (mostly) privately-funded project and the STL stadium requires a significant commitment of public dollars. I don’t think any reasonably sane person ever believed, for a second, that the STL drawing would be equal to the LA drawing. And that really isn’t the point. The standards are different. And the proposed stadium in St. Louis is absolutely suitable for the market.

So what does this mean for St. Louis?

As wonderful as the Kroenke kingdom appears to be, the basic challenge for STL remains the same.

If St. Louis can fund a stadium plan by the end of the year, then STL will put strong pressure on the NFL to keep the Rams here.

Why? Well, we’ve gone over this many times, and I guess we’ll go over it again …

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and NFL executive VP Eric Grubman have repeatedly stated that the league’s primary objective is to help existing markets come up with a stadium solution that will keep their franchise in place. And never in NFL history has a team moved from a market that has a new, funded stadium project ready to break ground.

And allowing the Rams to be stripped from St. Louis would be even more outrageous considering that (A) the league has encouraged St. Louis to build the stadium; and (B) the NFL dispatched Grubman to St. Louis to assist with the planning of the new stadium.

The NFL is hardly a bastion of ethics. But how can you tell a city to fund and build a new stadium and send your second-most powerful exec to oversee the project and then take the franchise away after the city complies with your instructions?

On the flip side: if the stadium plan here fails to become an actionable reality by the end of the calendar year, then the Rams are most likely gone.

The reason I don’t say “definitely” gone is because of the Carson plan, which would allow the league to solve the California problem with California teams instead of ripping another franchise from another region.

Aside from that, Kroenke’s path to Los Angeles is obviously much clearer without a new stadium in STL. Without a stadium, St. Louis makes it much easier for the owners to vote in Kroenke’s favor if he applies for relocation. (Presuming he doesn’t go rogue and move anyway.)

Related note: Sports Illustrated’s Peter King asked Goodell about the LA situation. King even asked about Kroenke’s ongoing status of being in violation of the NFL rules that prohibit cross ownership.

Here’s the pertinent passage, presented verbatim:

King: I mean, L.A. is going to happen … As you look at the landscape, what has changed to make it logical and likely that there will be football in Los Angeles?

Goodell: I’m not saying it’s likely. I think a couple of things are positive. One is our long-term labor agreement. I would say that when someone is making the kind of investment that you have to make in the Los Angeles market as well as a lot of other markets—you need the long-term stability so that we can invest back in the business. Ultimately that will pay you back. That’s why we’ve seen the salary cap increase by $20 million per team over the past two years. That investment is paying back. I think the long-term labor agreement has given us the ability to evaluate a long-term investment in Los Angeles to make it work successfully—because it’s a challenging market. It’s competitive. The stadium is a critical component of that. They’re not getting cheaper.

King: Doesn’t it make the most sense to have Oakland and San Diego combining in a stadium in L.A. and the Rams staying in St. Louis?

Goodell: Our first objective will be to make sure that those markets have had the chance to get something done—that they can get a stadium built to secure the long-term future of their franchise. San Diego has been working 14 years on a new stadium. Oakland is not in a new debate either, for the A’s or the Raiders. Same with St. Louis. … These are long debates about what is the right solution for the community and what is best for the team. We’re looking to see if we can create those solutions locally. If we can’t, we obviously have to look at long-term solutions for those teams.

King: Gut feeling—football in L.A. in 2016?

Goodell: I really don’t know, Peter. I’m not relying on my gut, I guess. I’m relying on if there is a real alternative where we can return to the market successfully for the long-term; that is the biggest priority in Los Angeles. And the other one is obviously making sure that we’re doing whatever necessary in the local markets to keep our teams successful and give them every opportunity to create a solution that works for the team long-term.

King: One other thing about L.A.—Stan Kroenke and the cross-ownership rules. Several times the league has told Kroenke to divest the ownership of his hockey and basketball teams. What can the league do to make him get rid of those teams?

Goodell: The finance committee has been working on this. They’ve given him periods of time to correct it and different ways in which to correct it. I think progress is being made on that. Stan hasn’t said, “I’m not going to be in compliance with the rules.” He wants to make sure that if we’re going to change our rules, he can get consideration for that. If we’re not going to change our rules, how can he do it in the appropriate way?

Goodell, as expected, is giving the NFL plenty of wiggle room on the LA front. As he should, because this drama could swerve in several different directions.

But St. Louis-based Rams fans can take at least a little comfort from Goodell’s claim that “our first objective will be to make sure that those markets have had the chance to get something done,” … and “we’re looking to see if we can create those solutions locally. If we can’t, we obviously have to look at long-term solutions for those teams.”

That brings us back to the main point.

If St. Louis secures the necessary stadium funding, the city will remain in contention to keep the Rams or possibly attract another franchise.

If the St. Louis stadium plan collapses, then the “long-term solution” will most likely come elsewhere. That would be Los Angeles.

Thanks for reading …

— Bernie

Dak wrote:

F Kroenke and his plan.

I am tired of being neutral on the subject. If the NFL had any type of integrity, it wouldn’t let Stan leave St. Louis … and I don’t buy any argument that St. Louis spent too long making an offer. First, they let SK buy the team even though he was in violation of cross-ownership rules. They told him to fix the cross-ownership issue, but he never does. And, now, with St. Louis putting together a plan that includes public assistance, SK steamrolls ahead with this opulent, privately financed stadium in L.A. Everyone’s like, well, it’s Stan’s team. No, it’s an NFL team, in an NFL City, that already lost a team to an owner who expected assistance despite incompetence. But, SK is worse than Bidwill. Bidwill talked to City leaders. Stan says nothing to nobody here. He doesn’t have to say “F you, St. Louis,” that’s obvious. So, F you, Stan. F you, too.

it’s all very unfortunate. ultimately the nfl will do what’s best for the nfl. question is is it better for the nfl to keep the rams in st louis or in los angeles?

so is accommodating 2 teams in the stadium something kroenke is doing on his own or was that something that was said to him by the league?

i’m guessing it was grubman who told him to include that.

yeah. i worry about picking a bust. look at what happened with richardson.

but i think gurley is as sure a thing as you can get. i like the comparison to jackson and lynch that cosell made. he’s at least that kind of body type. and i think he’s not going to necessarily need an elite ol. he can make his own holes.

NERam wrote:

Cautiously optimistic. Hoping for the best, etc.

One negative that seems to stand out from reports is Foles tendency to become unstable under pressure. Understood that MOST QB’s come unglued under pressure, but some seem to do crazier things than others.

If the OL doesn’t get straightened out, I guess were gonna get plenty of chances to see for ourselves.

one thing i want to add in all this is that foles just completed his third season.

so while it might be true that foles has a tendency to become unstable under pressure. and i’ve also read that he can sometimes hold onto the ball too long. or be careless with the ball. he’s young. he’s supposed to be a tireless worker.

so it remains to be seen if these are things that he can correct. regardless of the state of the offensive line or the skill position players surrounding him. i’m hoping that improvement from foles himself can contribute to offensive performance. not necessarily foles elevating the offense. but different units elevating each other. a kind of synergistic effect perhaps?

like the rams have enough to think about fixing that oline.

what does this mean for the rams?

i would also look into trading down and drafting todd gurley. i think he’d be a nice combo with tre mason. i like melvin gordon too. need a dominating running game.

i don’t think this is the first time he’s been lied to. it’s this plus a possible lame duck season. i also think that fisher tends to favor national media over the local media. and maybe there’s some hard feelings there.

i don’t know. just throwing that out there.

i’d trade down if i was going to pick a lineman. otherwise i’d want cooper or white or maybe waynes. if they were gone and i couldn’t trade down then yeah i’d have to take a hard look at the offensive line.

i would agree with that. strong running game or a better secondary in order for this defense to reach top 5.

they should at least finish in the top 10. if they don’t, i’d say this coaching staff needs to fired.

i do expect kendricks to get more involved in the receiving game especially if they can fix that oline. and it sounds like cignetti has some new ideas on how to get more out of him. at least i hope he does.

Zooey wrote:

InvaderRam wrote:
ok i take that back. i do believe the rams could have gotten a first round pick for bradford, so i’m going to have to rethink this one.

Yeah, but they couldn’t get a first round pick AND a QB who can start.

that is very true. the question for me is should they have gone the safe route or go for broke? try and trade up to get mariota.

certainly getting foles is the safer route. most likely a solid qb that can maybe get the rams to the playoffs. or do i want the qb that could possibly get the team to a superbowl?

• This reply was modified 9 years, 8 months ago by InvaderRam.