Forum Replies Created

Viewing 30 posts - 6,571 through 6,600 (of 7,245 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: JT chat, 3/31 #21895
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    I’ve been told that if the team relocates, many employees will have to re-apply for their jobs. Which I think would mean Kroenke would not pay relocation costs.

    If true…this is really sucky of them.

    that’d be a real kick in the balls.

    in reply to: JT chat, 3/31 #21887
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    i’m expecting a big year from robinson. rams need to start hitting on these first rounders. big time. especially robinson given that he’s on the oline.

    in reply to: Jim Thomas: Rams are simplifying their defense #21865
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    well what was the case before williams? what were the defenses like before? simple? complex?

    in reply to: Jim Thomas: Rams are simplifying their defense #21845
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    i’m not sure it needed simplification as much as some guys like ogletree and jenkins need to get their heads right.

    ogletree needs to show up in shape. jenkins needs to not gamble so much.

    oh and brockers needs to keep his weight up.

    in reply to: Alvin Dupree – Arik Armstead – DEs #21844
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    short arms dupree has…

    ha

    in reply to: The draft–prospects, scouting, mocks #21835
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    i worry about those alabama backs although ingram had a good 2014.

    they do need to pick a running back somewhere though.

    get him and collins. robinson saffold collins barksdale. that’d be a nice line to run behind. barnes or jones at center?

    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    i would not want parker. i’d rather they go ol or gurley at that point if they can’t trade down.

    i don’t think cooper makes it past top 5.

    in reply to: Rams Addiction Podcast, Episode 94: Stadium #21817
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    yeah. the one thing i would definitely disagree with is i think they’re a little too optimistic about the league doing the honorable thing.

    i don’t think i’d put the chances of the rams staying at an even 50-50.

    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    one or two of these guys should fall to the second round no?

    on the other hand rams have passed up on some good guard prospects in the past and are now paying for it. warford in particular comes to mind.

    in reply to: Rams Addiction Podcast, Episode 94: Stadium #21755
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    mr. kroenke. he’s the devil.

    yeah. he has positioned himself well. and he gives the league many options. the league is very happy with stan.

    that was a good listen.

    i agree with a lot of what they say.

    in reply to: The draft–prospects, scouting, mocks #21753
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    basically rams better try hard as hell to trade down.

    in reply to: Active GMs with best record of drafting Pro Bowlers #21731
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    what is snead’s record? the only pro bowler i can think of is donald.

    in reply to: OL in free agency … Barksdale, Blalock, Wisniewski, etc. #21730
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    just from the standpoint of getting any offensive lineman in free agency would be great. but to also get the continuity and to not have to overpay for it would be huge. if they can re-sign him the rams played that one well.

    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    i’m curious as to what the rams think about hundley. as far as measurables go he’s about as ideal as you can get. you just wonder about the mental aspect.

    in reply to: WRs in the draft: Cooper, White, Perriman, Parker . #21937
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    cooper is one of those he’s most likely out of our reach, but if he gets to #8, do you consider trading up for him?

    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    i agree. i’m feeling pretty positive about foles right now. i think they do need to improve the running game as well but yeah. if they can fix the oline. foles should exceed expectations.

    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    meanwhile you have a state of the art stadium in inglewood. you can have superbowls probowls. you can have the combine. the draft. you also have room for another team. they’ll use it as leverage or the chargers move there at a later date. although my guess is that they’d prefer the chargers stay in san diego.

    is this fair? probably not but the nfl would be able to sell this with the only loser being raider fans. but again i think that would be the acceptable loss here. the weakest link in the owners eyes.

    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    it will be what’s best for the league. they couldn’t ask for a better situation what with three teams with southern california connections. the one sure thing is the chargers. they’re already based in this area. i think it’s a no brainer.

    so then it comes down to the rams and raiders.

    i think the rams win in almost every category.

    they have a long history in los angeles. it should be much easier establishing a fan base.

    and as much as fans aren’t fond of stan he’s the stronger owner at least in the eyes of the league.

    i have a hard time believing spanos and davis will come up with a better stadium plan in carson.

    while raider nation has a strong fan base i believe they are largely irrelevant in the eyes of corporate sponsors. i don’t think the owners will shed too many tears if the raider brand is gone. meanwhile they can draw upon a strong ram brand in los angeles. yeah it was a long time ago but it makes for good nostalgia. there’s a strong connection there.

    so what happens with the raiders. like i said. the nfl doesn’t need the raider brand anymore. they can rebrand them as the stallions and send them to st louis. a natural rivalry can be established in missouri with the chiefs. the preseason rivalry was nice but largely irrelevant but now you get a true division rivalry between kansas city and st louis in the afc west. that’s something corporate sponsors could get behind? i think so. it’s something fans in missouri could definitely get behind. rams niners rivalry? sure. but i’m not sure st louis fans really truly got behind that.

    does that sound like something the league would get behind? to me it makes sense. just a hunch.

    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    i just remember how fisher kept telling thomas there was no way the rams were trading sam. flat out denied it. we all know what happened.

    so do i think the league can pull the rug out from under st. louis while saying in public that they will not abandon them? absolutely.

    in reply to: Fisher, 3/26 … transcript #21592
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    does it simplify the protection schemes?

    They didn’t say anything about changing schemes.

    It was all about terminology and volume. I assume that means volume of terms you need to know to know a given play?

    i wonder what that means for tavon. will that unleash tavon? if he doesn’t need to know as much on a given play?

    in reply to: Fisher, 3/26 … transcript #21580
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    does it simplify the protection schemes? or does that pretty much stay the same?

    they just need to protect the qb and run the ball better. that’ll take care of a lot of problems.

    in reply to: Amari Cooper ran 4.31 to 4.37, not 4.42 at combine #21514
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    yeah. i would like cooper. even a 4.42 cooper. plus he’s got the big hands! ha!

    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    i think the rams end up re-signing barksdale. then they could spend a first or second rounder and a stud offensive lineman. i think that fifth spot can be filled with a low level free agent or from within. now they should still add depth. but as far as the starting five i think it should be relatively easy to do. robinson and saffold will be studs i think.

    in reply to: I hate Goodell #21509
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    well if we’ve learned anything it’s that the nfl has no integrity.

    Well, i am not sure there is such a thing
    as a mega-corporation with ‘integrity’ — but
    i shall spare us all
    my speech on that…

    A lot of fans have already figured out
    you haf ta kinda follow the ‘players/team’
    and not the ‘Corporate-NFL/Owners’
    Its tricky but it can be done.

    A lot of California ram fans managed
    to do that when Georgia moved the team.
    A lot of Missouri fans may learn to do
    that if the Rams move back.

    We need to start passing out ‘Nomad”
    t-shirts or somethin.

    w
    v

    or some fans have that feeling of pride in their city. and not necessarily the players or the owners.

    for me it’s the horns on the helmet.

    with the cardinals. it’s the birds on the bat.

    now if the rams get rid of those horns. that will crush me.

    in reply to: I hate Goodell #21495
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    well if we’ve learned anything it’s that the nfl has no integrity.

    i mean i wouldn’t mind seeing the rams in los angeles but this is all very unfortunate. lots of st louis rams fans here and it would suck to see them go.

    anyway i think the league has seen kroenke’s plans. i think this is what they’ve been waiting for and they are going to do everything they can to make it happen. the rams already have a fan base there. it’s the plan that has the greatest chance to succeed. and that stadium is going to be an absolute spectacle.

    i still think st louis gets a team. maybe not immediately but somehow they will.

    • This reply was modified 10 years, 11 months ago by Avatar photoInvaderRam.
    in reply to: Foles to Tavon #21397
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    i don’t know what the key to unlock tavon is, but if there is one, the rams better find it. he’s doing alright, but he can do better.

    whether it be a tall quarterback. or getting a better offensive line. or a better running game to get the play action going. maybe frank cignetti has some ideas schotty didn’t.

    in reply to: How good (or bad) will the Defense be? #21358
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    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.

    in reply to: JT on 920 … 3/23 … audio & transcript #21357
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    More on Kroenke’s two-team stadium:

    “It could be a thing to split up the Raiders-Chargers alliance in Carson, Calif.”

    Say St. Louis builds a stadium and owners don’t approve of Kroenke relocating team. Could he really show his face as the owner of the St. Louis Rams after all this? Woudn’t that be awkward?

    “It would be awkward, but how often do you see him now? I don’t think it really changes that much. If St. Louis comes through with this stadium plan, if they get the financing, it will be very hard for the league to turn its back on St. Louis. The league’s not stupid. The old sports cliche, ‘St. Louis controls its own destiny,’ it’s still very true as we sit here right now.”

    it could also be used as leverage if any other future team wants a new stadium. assuming the raiders and chargers stay in their cities. and a real tangible state of the art stadium will raise the stakes even higher.

    i don’t think the owners want the rams to move to st. louis. but i think it will end up being the best of two options. i think the other owners are every bit as ruthless as kroenke. i really do. and when it comes down to it. they’ll have no problems turning their backs on st. louis. maybe they’ll prove me wrong.

    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    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

    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    I don’t buy any argument that St. Louis spent too long making an offer.

    fwiw, JT echoes your take on that:

    To my understanding the Kroenke camp found out about the pending release of the St. Louis plans, and purposely announced their plans ahead of StL. That gave the appearance that Peacock and Blitz were reacting to the LA stadium announcement which really wasn’t the case. It helped feed the narrative pushed by the Rams, that St. Louis was moving at too slow of a pace. You know, too little too late.
    by jthomas 3:35 PM


    I still take umbrage with the whole “finally people realized that there was some urgency” thing.
    by jthomas 4:32 PM

    just to be clear i didn’t write that. that was dak.

    this article makes some scary sense. huh…

    http://sports.yahoo.com/news/rams–l-a–power-play-allows-nfl-to-maintain-its-top-leveraging-weapon-191030426.html

    Rams’ L.A. power play allows NFL to maintain its top leveraging weapon
    By Dan Wetzel 15 minutes ago Yahoo Sports

    The NFL franchise that has proven most valuable to the league and its owners over the past two decades is the one that hasn’t existed in Los Angeles.

    It was after the 1994 season when the Rams and Raiders moved to St. Louis and Oakland respectively, leaving the nation’s second biggest media market without a team of its own. Since then franchises have leveraged that gaping hole in California to get their local governments to subsidize construction of new stadiums, renovation of existing ones or innumerable other concessions on taxes and services provided.

    Nothing scared the tax money out of some poor Rust Belt mayor or image-obsessed Sun Belt city council than an NFL owner trotting out a few awe-inspiring renderings of a proposed stadium in some obscure L.A. suburb.

    The Rams and the Raiders, in fact, are even back, talking about a return to their old stomping grounds. The San Diego Chargers are talking big also.

    At the NFL owners’ meetings this week in Phoenix, the Rams will, according to the Los Angeles Times, show designs on their proposed stadium to be built at the old Hollywood Park in Inglewood. This one is serious and not just because Rams owner Stan Kroenke has already purchased the land and is willing to privately-fund stadium construction. There are plenty of rubes that own pro sports franchises in America. Kroenke, the league’s second richest owner, isn’t one of them. It’s believed construction could begin as soon as 2016. He’s more than capable of getting it done.

    That’s why the Rams going to Inglewood has always been exponentially more likely than the Chargers and the Raiders getting a shared stadium, funding source still unknown, down Interstate 405 in Carson.

    And now a couple of key details in Kroenke’s stadium proposal make the entire move seem even more likely, so likely that the Rams have to be the heavy favorite to win the long-running L.A. relocation derby and actually relocate.

    The two big ones: $1.86 billion stadium is designed to house a second NFL franchise … it’s just a second franchise won’t be put in there right away, according to the Times.

    “The Inglewood plan is two-team compliant, which means it has two home locker rooms, identical sets of office space, and two owners’ suites,” Sam Farmer’s article states.

    The two-team concept is an old one, mind you, because why use the fear of L.A. relocation to scare one city when you can scare two? The NFL has long claimed that a market that never supported one team very well is capable of supporting two. Whatever.

    The twist here is Kroenke is putting up the money for the stadium and not relying on direct public funds or skimming off future possible tax revenue. A deal like that – essentially the Chargers/Raiders proposal – requires government support and approval, which is a lot easier if there are two clubs as tenants that can double revenue, taxes and ancillary neighborhood income.

    Since this is all Kroenke, he reportedly will want exclusivity in his own stadium, and thus the market, for some undetermined stretch.

    That seems fair. It’s his money. Why would any owner in any business want to share the region? Why not lock out the competition and control it all for yourself?

    At the very least, Kroenke’s team wants time to ride the attention and excitement, draw in the most football-starved fans who are likely to become the most loyal customers, lock up the best corporate sponsors, and be the hot spot in town for all the celebrities to see and be seen. You always want to be first and sports are no different. More than half a century later, the New York Jets and Mets still, in various ways, play second fiddle to the Giants and Yankees.

    The entire idea of splitting the L.A. market is actually a cause of concern for an owner. Is this market really that eager for football? It hasn’t been in the past. While the sport is more popular than ever, there are also far more entertainment options out there. And the beach hasn’t moved.

    No one doubts one team could certainly work. So here’s one team … Kroenke’s, not two, the Chargers and Raiders. If, at some point in the future, Kroenke believes his team can handle the competition, he welcomes a tenant that will pay hefty rent that helps offset losses competition would bring. In the meantime, all the other NFL owners, three-fourths of whom would need to approve the move, don’t lose the valuable bargaining chip they’ve always carried in their back pocket – the threat of packing up for L.A.

    In fact, with Kroenke doing all the dirty work of building an actual stadium in a region that for decades has shown little eagerness to do such a thing, the ability to pressure governments and fans back home is greater.

    This isn’t some pipe dream plan anymore. There would be a modern stadium in place with an extra home locker room, extra identical office space, and an extra owner’s suite just waiting. There’s no funding to secure. No building permits to attain. No governments or unions to court. No transitional seasons at the Rose Bowl or L.A. Coliseum.

    The NFL gets to trade smaller St. Louis for the larger L.A. and keep its relocation threat for all the owners who never actually want to move but are more than happy to bluff that they do.

    So by at last putting an actual team in Los Angeles, Kroenke not only manages to continue the league-wide value of a team that doesn’t exist in Los Angeles, he may have figured out how to make the new non-existent team in Los Angeles even more valuable than the old non-existent team in Los Angeles.

    Does that last sentence make sense to you?

    It will to NFL owners.

    • This reply was modified 10 years, 11 months ago by Avatar photozn.
Viewing 30 posts - 6,571 through 6,600 (of 7,245 total)