Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
rflParticipantAlso, what do YOU expect to see next season?
I expect a ten win season or thereabouts. What
do YOU expect?Didn’t see this question before.
I guess, in general, I expect to see a 7-9 or 6-10 season.
Of course, it’s too early to say anything. Show me who the OL and the QBs are, and I’ll have a better idea.
But, you know, I honestly could imagine anything.
Get off to a good start with a stable OL and healthy, starter-level QB, and I could imagine a big year. There’s no reason we couldn’t win 11 or 12.
Get off to a bad start in an empty stadium and under a lame duck coach, and I could imagine sliding into the morass and winning 3-4. I can SEE how that could happen.
Again, the question is whether the team learns to compete. And there’s no way to predict that.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantAnd i do think they are close. I expect
a break out season next year. Because
I think a lot of pressure on the offense
will be relieved with some solid upgrades
on the OLine. And yes, i think thats do-able
and i think Snead can accomplish that. It
cant be that hard to find a Center and a Guard.Let me ask you something RFL, would you fire
Fisher at this point or give him another season?First, your question. Would I fire Fisher?
I dunno. Probably not, especially in the lame duck year. GRITS is right, I think, about the Fish being asked to handle the transition.
But even apart from that, I don’t think I would fire him this year. Not unless I had another, better coach on tap.
What I WOULD DO if I were the ownership would be to get both Snead and Fisher into a locked room and give them a simple message: no more bullshit about how we’re improving and getting better after crushing, soul-destroying losses. Don’t ask fans to swallow that crap. And make it clear to players–people who can’t compete are going to be gone.
Hill should NEVER be given another contract after that pick on the goal line in SD. You do that with a season on the line after a decade of losing … I don’t care. You gotta go. That’s not what a winning team is about. It should be made clear to players that guys who can’t compete with discipline are going to be gone.
I would tell Fisher and Snead that “getting better” is no longer acceptable. It isn’t enough. You’d damn well better have the team READY for opening day. You’d better find an OL with healthy, competitive guys. You’d better have Williams calling a defense that is sound AND aggressive. You’d better get this team into contention and ready to compete down the stretch, or we’ll get someone who can. And you’d better talk to everyone as if we expect success, not as if we suck less than before and that minimal improvement is meaningful progress.
And this is where your view coheres with Fisher’s and differs from mine:
And i do think they are close. I expect
a break out season next year.You and I fundamentally differ in perspective here. It isn’t a matter of conclusion drawn. It’s a matter of the questions to ask.
“Being close” is a matter of improvement. It’s talent level, and somewhat more than that. But it’s a matter of taking incremental steps along a continuum leading, hopefully, to a breakthrough.
And, see, I am asking different questions. As I keep saying, I saw this team learning to compete in Fisher’s 1st year. It happened ALMOST immediately. Remember how they “almost” beat DET in Game 1? They weren’t capable of actually competing with, say, NE. But they did compete with SF, precisely because SF offered a challenge a competitor could deal with. SF played a game that a competitive but inferior team could hang in there with. They did, and stole 2 results, a win and a draw.
That teamed learned to compete virtually immediately. Fisher SAID he could teach them, and then he did. They played like winners though their capability was still limited.
That’s what I haven’t seen since. The team has “gotten better,” but its competitive discipline has regressed. It’s a much better team than the ’12 bunch, but has a worse record.
So, most guys on this board raise the question of improvement. You say they are close to breaking through. Well, maybe they are. Maybe they aren’t.
What I am saying is that breaking through won’t come from incremental improvement. It won’t come from raising the talent level. It COULD come from adding a genuine leader in competitiveness, though they’re hard to find. But I would say …
1) We haven’t seen what I am talking about AT ALL in the last 2 years.
2) We won’t see a breakthrough on the basis of improved talent.
3) We’ll have no idea when the breakthrough is coming … until we see it in games that count and that matter.Can Fisher lead us to that breakthrough? I thought he would. He still might. But I really wonder, hearing his comments this season, whether he still has fire in the belly. I honestly wonder about that.
Well, hopefully at the very least I have been able to clarify HOW my view differs from the board consensus.
Of course, we’re all old friends who will stick with this team forever. Which is what the last decade has seemed like!
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantThanks, Dak. Great response. I feel as if you heard what I was saying. I haven’t felt that very often this year.
Just a couple of quick responses.
You are right about the rarity of a Nicklaus. I guess I would respond by saying that the great champions provide the best examples. But, that each sport produces a fair sampling of tough competitors who aren’t great, but who overachieve through sheer mental toughness. In golf, Harrington himself is an example. Or you can think of guys like Lanny Wadkins, or Raymond Floyd, or Curtis Strange. Guys who competed, who were always tough to beat, without being in rarefied air.
The NFL has produced magnificent champions, of course. But, it always produces, every year, tough competitors. And there’s another issue:
If you’re saying that the Rams don’t have enough players like that, I cannot argue against it. What I see, though, is the possibility that some of their players CAN develop into that.
Football is different from golf in a key way. It’s a TEAM GAME. Yes, great teams are led by great competitors from Bednarik to Blanda to Unitas to Montana to Ray Lewis. Great competitors can lift a team as players. But, not all competitive teams have world class competitors as players. And, recall, in my view, there are probably 5-6 COMPETITIVE teams each year. AZ is a great example this year. I can’t name a single great player on that team other than, probably, Larry F. But they COMPETED all year. Their QBs went down and they kept competing. It caught up with them, but they never quit.
We don’t necessarily have to find more individual PLAYERS who are competitive. We need to be a more competitive ORGANIZATION.
I’ve written this half a dozen times. This is Fisher’s own standard. When he came, he said he needed to teach the players how to win. He said if you understand how, you can start winning. In Season 1, he seemed to be doing that. A pretty weak team was learning to compete and steal some wins. It wasn’t capable of much more. But it was pushing its ceiling by doing the 3 things I identified here. That 8-7-1 record was probably 4-5 games better than it should have been.
In the 2 following seasons, the team has utterly failed to come close to that level of competitiveness. The talent has risen. The standard of play is better in some ways, on D, in STs, even to some extent on offense. But the competitiveness has not held up.
In the opening games both years, the team has slid into a non-competitive comfort zone, exactly like the golfer who shoots 73-72 and misses the cut or makes it on the number. There’s no real chance at winning. So the pressure evaporates. A few plays here and there, a could stolen wins, and one can say, “see, we’re getting better.”
But it’s garbage time. Cheap, uncompetitive achievement. And the proof of it lies in those last few games both years. Just when the team got to the edge of some competitive possibilities, it fell away again, sliding back into the comfort of a losing season that has enough flash to claim that good times are ahead.
Whose fault is it? What has to happen to turn things around?
What do I know? Football is a coach’s sport, and the HC has to take responsibility. But the players do, too. Do we need a couple great competitors on the field to drive the troops? Does Fisher have to change his preparation? I dunno.
What I do know is that competitiveness is measured by winning and losing. Not by playing well while out of touch with wins. I would far rather cheer for a limited but tough, competitive team that wins ugly but wins more than it should than for a talented team that puts streaks of brilliance together with an overall inability to compete when it matters.
This Rams team has, with the exception of the GSOT anomaly for 3-4 years, ACCEPTED mediocrity or worse for 30 years. There’s nothing I can do to change anything. I will, however, continue to call “Bullshit” on false competitiveness until I see the team actually compete.
DAK, my friend, I have broken my resolution to let the dead horse lie. Your fault, my man! You shouldn’t have encouraged me. LOL!
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantI dont think the problem with the Rams
is a lack of competitive spirit though.
I dont see that.Interesting.
I guess, by the way, that I failed to say what I intended. The post is not about competitive spirit.
It’s about performance that competes effectively in the clutch, the zone where games and seasons are won and lost. It’s not measured with emotion or with individual plays, any more than a golf tournament can be won with a single shot or good round. It’s about measuring up to the test of winning and losing.
Do you really see the Rams doing that? Honestly? Hmmmmmmmmm …
Well, it’s clear that there isn’t much interest in this issue. Time to put this dead horse to rest.
By virtue of the absurd ...
January 29, 2015 at 5:48 pm in reply to: 101, 1/26 … Albert Breer on re-location (re-location thread) #17646rflParticipant“Yes, there was a stipulation that gave the Rams the opportunity to get a new stadium upgrade after 20 years. Local leaders knew …
This.”
You know, there’s another aspect of all this. The original building.
Snow and I live up here in Minny. When the Metrodome was built, it was done on the cheap. The Twin Cities took great pride in building the cheapest stadium around and fitting 2 teams into it. Such a deal!
The problem is that it was a bad stadium. Within a year or 2, people were talking about building a better stadium. The Twins built a much nicer stadium and now the Vikings are doing so. We have seen about 20 years of roiling controversy over the need to replace a really lousy stadium.
Now, the Ed is not that bad. But the complaints have swirled around it for a long time. I dunno the specifics. But I can’t imagine the Ed wasn’t built as something of a bargain. Discontent may well have been built in.
Of course, I am not personally complaining. I don’t think cities SHOULD pay for stadia. Let the filthy rich owners pay for it.
I’m just saying that, if you are going to use city money to lure a team, you better know that if you don’t build a jewel of a stadium with room and infrastructure for upgrades, you are going to start facing static for stadium inadequacy within a few years of the opening. And you’ll have it all to do again.
Just sayin’ …
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantThe bogus offensive Pass Interference call on Dane Cook in the 2nd qtr was a huge momentum turner in that game……Rams should have had 1st and 10 just outside the redzone with about 3 minutes before half that could have extended the 14-3 lead………. , instead, the Rams were forced to punt that set up JJ’s brain freeze on the Niner’s TD right before halftime….
Well, sure. We’ve seen a lot of lousy officiating. Losing teams always do.
But here’s the thing. To earn beneficial officiating a team has to … start winning. And it has to do that BEFORE it starts getting good calls. This is a universal principle of sports. To be winners, a team must overcome bad officiating. Hell, even winners get bad calls.
This is the thing about our lack of competitiveness. When we get a bad break, we fold. We just collapse. You know, these big plays against us on D–they didn’t decide the game. They just faced us with adversity which we have consistently proved unable to overcome. You know that feeling we all get–one play and we feel it slide away? We feel that because it keeps happening. Indeed, the fact that one could say that a bad break in the 2nd Q could cause us to lose … that whole idea rests on the assumption that we would be unable to overcome it in a whole half of football. A correct assumption, BTW.
See, winners don’t think that way. They absorb blows, limit the damage, and figure how to win. That’s what it means to be a winner. You don’t let bad calls in the 2nd Q crush you.
By virtue of the absurd ...
January 28, 2015 at 12:40 pm in reply to: Debating Aaron Donald, Khalil Mack for defensive rookie of the year #17590rflParticipantThe scary part about Donald is despite how good he is right now, he’s still just scratching the surface of his potential.
I love Aaron Donald. He’s fantastic. He’d be in the top 5 of guys I’d start a defense with.
But …
I don’t get this sentence. To me, it’s knee-jerk, concept thinking. That is, it seems to be based on a widely held generalized assumption:
Player X is just a rookie. He’ll be even better in his second year.
I always resist these assumptions. And this one is I think particularly dumb. Many 2nd year guys plateau or regress. They even have a name for it: Sophomore Jinx.
But in Donald’s case is is particularly dumb. Consider: what is so impressive about him?
It’s how prepared he was. Wagner says, “They believed this was one of the most polished players in the draft and they were absolutely right.” Donald came in playing the position the way seasoned guys do.
That’s great. But, the logical inference is not that he will steadily progress. If he ALREADY plays like a vet, then there is LESS ROOM FOR HIM TO IMPROVE THAN WITH THE NORMAL ROOKIE!
I think A D will be an elite tackle for years. But I don’t expect him to improve a lot. He’s already playing veteran football. He’ll keep doing what he’s doing.
And that will be wonderful.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantTrue, rfl, but its also true that there was a trajectory on defense.
It got better. There were still some awful mistakes in the second half
of the season, but i dont see you acknowledging that there WAS
a trajectory of improvement. Which might lead to optimism. Yes?w
vLOL. My friend, I agree. We need to see all sides of the situation. I guess I feel that’s what I am trying to do.
Let’s just look briefly at the question of a trajectory of improvement. Was it there?
Well, yes. It would be foolish to deny that the defense wasn’t playing better in that shutout streak than it was weeks 1-5.
But then recall that the trajectory slipped and eroded again in the last few games. AZ came in with a beat up offense and we let them run steadily enough to outscore us. I thought that we slipped in that game. Then, the NYG game was a reversion to our worst habits. And the SEA game again featured, if I recall, a late collapse.
As I say, ALL of it counts.
And by the way, there are trajectories and there are trajectories. They were still playing lousy defense IN WEEK 5! There was little indication of anything more than a month into the season.
Then, a few weeks later they are playing at historical levels.
In my view, that is not a normal trajectory of improvement. That’s weird.
And, it has to be in context. It was the 2nd year in a row in which essentially the same guys started out horrible, got better, and then faded out again down the stretch. If we are going to assess the organization, we need to look at why a defense expected to be very good in ’13 started poorly, recovered, looked to be great in ’14, AGAIN started poorly, improved, then AGAIN fell off late.
Is that “trajectory” one to build optimism on? Well, optimism is a subjective state, and each guy chooses for himself.
For me, I try to look at it all. And what I see gives me hope and lingering concern.
Of course, it is great to see flashes of greatness in the unit. As a fan I HOPE that this becomes the norm for our defense.
But right now, it isn’t for me an EXPECTATION. Because, as the talent has risen, the two constants have been inconsistency and competitive slackness. Apart from a few games, I have not seen a MONEY defense over 2 seasons. As the article says, this has been true in wins as well as in losses.
So, here are my keys looking forward. You can decide whether they add up to optimism or not.
* The talent is fine. Exciting. Good enough for an elite defense.
* We need to stop or at least contain the run 90% of the time, as good defenses do. Teams cannot game plan to run on us because we are so vulnerable to cutbacks and big plays.
* The schemes have to stop blitzing recklessly and playing soft coverage. Conceding the chains does far more damage than a few long passes.
* The unit needs to get more stops and get off the field.
* We need to concede fewer than 20 points in all but a very, very few games. (I know–scores of turnovers count there!)
* The defense needs to prove that it can consistently get stops with the game on the line.
* None of the above is a matter of getting a couple guys at positions X, Y, and Z.
* We need to start playing consistently tough football, whatever our talent level.
* And we need to do so on the freaking field in league games that count.When I see us doing the above–all of which, by the way, is frequently accomplished by limited but tough defenses not as talented as ours–THEN I will become genuinely optimistic.
To this point, the improvement I’ve seen adds up to a competitive minus. Sadly.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantrfl wrote:
The issue for our defense is NOT about talent upgrades.Unless of course what needs to be upgraded is Jenkins. Precisely because of the mistakes.
For example, Ogletree was a bit of a mess early on and then settled down. Jenkins never did.
And in fact if you go through the season, the game-killing mistakes on defense aren’t coming from everybody. They are coming from a specific set of guys (mostly Jenkins and McCleod).
So maybe it is personnel. And maybe those 2 will either improve or it turns out they can’t play in this defense.
Well, see, I am not just talking about a couple of deep balls.
I am also talking about the schizophrenic fluctuations of our run defense, which looks like a HS d-front one minute and like BALT in its heyday the next. Something which is not a problem for Jenkins who, I think, supports the run well for a corner.
I’m talking about soft coverages that give up effortless 3rd down conversions.
I’m talking about wildly gyrating levels of competitiveness across the board.
And, by the way, Ogletree was himself wildly up and down this year. He had horrible games and then games where he played like an All Pro.
The UNIT as a whole is profoundly inconsistent. That has to change.
What
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantbeat us the 40s?
LOL! I obviously meant the ’70s. I’m old, but not THAT old!
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantEven after that group started playing up to its potential, it still had a knack for giving up a big play or two that could change the game. Jenkins was often on the wrong end of those big plays though he was far from the only culprit.
Yep.
This is the thing with this defense.
It has all the talent it needs to be near-elite or better.
But it is not solidly, consistently competitive. It gives up plays that kill games.
For whatever reason.
Next year, we may or may not improve our talent on D. Maybe some depth. But I promise you something:
No matter who we get in FA or the draft, I will personally refuse to get excited. The issue for our defense is NOT about talent upgrades.
It’s about whether they can learn to defend consistently and with discipline, to drastically reduce the number of gifts they give to the opposition. They have to become STINGY in yielding yards and points. They have to force the opposition to beat them on its own merits, not through our blunders and largesse.
This is what a winning defense does. And it doesn’t even have to be statistically elite.
I don’t like a defense that starts the year as a bottom feeder, gets better, shuts out 2 teams in a row … and then falls apart down the stretch.
I’d rather have a defense that is steady through the year. Maybe not elite. But a defense which gets a lot of stops, averages, say, 18 points yielded, and virtually NEVER cheaply gives up big plays.
For you old school Rams fans …
Remember how the the Viking defense would beat us the 40s? We’d run and pass well on them all day. But we wouldn’t get in the end zone and we couldn’t break through.
Consistent, competitive discipline. That’s what I ask for. With our current talent level on defense at least, THAT is what we need far more than we need personnel upgrades. That is the factor that will determine how far we can rise next year.
And we will not, cannot know if we are getting somewhere on this until the games begin.
By virtue of the absurd ...
January 28, 2015 at 10:42 am in reply to: 101, 1/26 … Albert Breer on re-location (re-location thread) #17575rflParticipantDAK:
Let’s just say all signs point to the Rams moving. And, no signs point to them staying here.
I think this is right. And it is what I heard in the commentary and was referring to in my original post.
I didn’t feel that Breers was breaking any news. I thought he was cutting through a lot of clutter and misdirection and boiling things down to their core. And at that core …
As you say, DAK, all signs–including very weighty league indication–point to LA and there just isn’t much reason to expect6 StL to be able to hold the team.
I’ve been reading all this stuff for a while now, wondering, and I just felt that Breers’ commentary put it all together in a way that felt fairly decisive to me. It’s what I expect to happen.
For good or ill.
By virtue of the absurd ...
January 27, 2015 at 6:16 pm in reply to: 101, 1/26 … Albert Breer on re-location (re-location thread) #17508rflParticipantRams to city: We’ll stay for another year …
Rams management sent a letter to regional officials Monday afternoon.
The letter said the team was converting its 30-year lease to an “annual tenancy,” effective April 1 and, “in the absence of intervening events,” extending through March 31, 2016.
The notice, which has long been expected, does two things:
•It allows owner Stan Kroenke to pull the team out of St. Louis as soon as 2016, because the Rams lease will now expire at the end of every season. The original lease was to expire in 2025.
•It also legally binds the Rams to play at the Edward Jones Dome next fall — a point on which many here were uncertain.By the way, I don’t like this at all. The lame duck year is nasty for all concerned. It hurts the fans in both cities: StL has to endure a really lousy year and the LA fans have to wait one more year. And the players have to play in a dead stadium.
I guess this is the way they had to play it … in their eyes. But fans and team deserve better.
By virtue of the absurd ...
January 27, 2015 at 6:09 pm in reply to: 101, 1/26 … Albert Breer on re-location (re-location thread) #17507rflParticipantit’s weird. the nfl definitely doesn’t want to give the impression that they want teams to start moving around, but they want a team in los angeles and kroenke’s plan is probably the best they’ll get in a long while. and at the same time it almost corrects a previous “wrong” in that the league never wanted the rams to move in the first place.
i think somehow. this move gets pushed through. they’ll find a way to make it happen.
IR, I don’t even think it’s that tough a challenge, really.
As long as StL builds a good stadium and they get a team, it’ll be fine. In their eyes at least.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantVermiel says
1. He told the 99 team they could go to the superbowl the 1st Monday meeting after the famous SF game.
2. He thinks the GSOT could take this year’s Seattle defense. In fact he says “no question.”
I agree. I don’t think SEA today is the equal of, say, TB in ’99. It’s not a historically good defense. And the GSOT was a historically great offense with the sort of flexibility SEA doesn’t handle well.
By virtue of the absurd ...
January 27, 2015 at 6:01 pm in reply to: 101, 1/26 … Albert Breer on re-location (re-location thread) #17503rflParticipant3. Peacock isn’t giving up. Hardly. He’s more driven than ever to make the stadium a reality. No matter how many times his efforts are undermined, Peacock will continue to make his case directly to the NFL, and make it as difficult as possible for the NFL to pull the Rams out of St. Louis — if in fact the NFL wants to do that.
The best thing Peacock can do is keep working hard on the stadium project and make it as difficult as possible for the NFL to pull out of this market — if in fact the NFL is inclined to do so.
Fine. I just figure he’s looking beyond the Rams.
If StL plays things right, they’ll likely have a different team in a few years. That has to be the hope.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantLook. I dunno from this guy.
But I REALLY like the general concept here. This is what I have been saying.
Bradford and a career backup–even a pretty good one like Hill–are not enough.
Which leaves FA or the draft. The draft does not look to be a likely source of a good answer, this year at least.
What one can hope for from the draft is a developmental QB. But, even there, you need more than taking a flier on some 4th round schlub. You need a genuine prospect. I’m not demanding a guarantee–there aren’t any of those. But you need a guy who really does show something with a decent chance of panning out by, say, the 2nd half of the year.
Even better is a young guy with some success in the league and the promise of more. That’s the best of both worlds: the developmental upside of a draft pick and enough league experience to be viable as a starter over 14 games or so when Bradford goes down again.
Mack says …
If we have Foles, Bradford and Hill… I’d be damned happy.
Well, I’m not sure about Hill–or, of course, about this Foles guy–but this is indeed the right kind of formula.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantDoesn’t sound like a fit with Fisher. He could be frustrated again.
By virtue of the absurd ...
January 27, 2015 at 12:33 pm in reply to: 101, 1/26 … Albert Breer on re-location (re-location thread) #17479rflParticipantThis commentary makes a lot of sense.
Look. As you all know, the Rams have never played in my home town. I’m one of the nomads ZN has always talked about. And I am really ambivalent. My memories of the great Ram teams of my youth were associated with LA, the Colosseum, and my general affection for So Cal (except for the hated Lakers. Sorry–Celtics fan since ’68). But StL was the venue for a Ram SB win and it is drivable for me. I have watched a few games at the Ed and attended training camp in So. Il. So I am drawn in both directions in my love of the team.
I’m just saying that everything this guy said makes a helluva lot of sense. The pull of LA for the team, its owner, and the league is immensely strong. StL simply has nothing like it.
Apparently, StL’s last hope is that the owners won’t go along with the move. But this Breers guy IMO made a lot of sense in saying that Kroenke is offering the league significantly MORE than they could have hoped for in offering not just an LA franchise, but a West Coast base for the league. I must say, when I first started hearing that stuff some weeks ago, I instantly thought it pretty much wrapped things up. No freaking way StL can even begin to match that.
And really it makes sense of all the public masks we see. Kroenke has been silent. Of course–in his mind it has all been decided but it wasn’t time to say anything. When the state announced its stadium plans a few weeks back, they were basically talking past the Rams leaving. They know it’s a done deal and they’re behaving, hoping the league gives them a franchise. I wouldn’t be surprised if there isn’t a deal in the works already, compensating StL as Cle was compensated when the Browns left.
It just all makes so much sense. JT is still saying 45/55 the Rams stay. Well, he’s a helluva lot more connected than I am. But I can’t see how anyone could put the chances of staying much above 5%.
It’s weird. I feel really bad for StL fans. But then you have guys like GRITS and others from the Herd that have remained loyal for decades and will be rewarded by the return of the prodigal sons. Joy and sorrow, winners and losers, as always in life.
====================
What I really care about, of course is the team. And you know, oddly, the prospect of moving out to LA makes me optimistic far more than anything I see from the team right now.
This Breer guy was honest about the challenge of making it in LA. He said a team would need success. I think he overstated that a bit–the money isn’t in stadium seats any more anyway. But there would be pressure to succeed that simply has not existed in StL. (Which is not a knock on the loyal StL fans who have loyally supported the team through a lot of shit, but who have also thereby reduced the pressure to succeed.)
But, in sheerly opportunistic terms, I imagine a Rams team playing in the league’s West Coast home base with major media support. Such a team would NOT have the sort of problems with refs that our humble midwestern bunch has struggled with. FAs would love to sign. Resources would be plentiful. Man, I think that would be a recipe for success.
And there would be pressure. If Fisher’s current situation and 3 year track record were instantly transported to LA, he’d be under far more pressure to succeed. To be honest, I like that. There’s been far too much tolerance of mediocrity in the Ram organization, reaching back to Georgia’s first years as owner.
The consensus on this board is that Snead and Fisher have laid some foundations for success. Although I think that position is somewhat overstated, I do think it’s largely true. Whether it’s Fisher or the next guy, there’s a helluva lot of personnel infrastructure to build on to create a damn competitive team. I mean, just think. Suppose a year from now it is clear that we need a QB not in the building. The prospect of leading LA to glory will be a pretty strong incentive for the best QB FAs.
So, in the short term, I am pessimistic. Next year will almost certainly be a lame duck year with disgruntled StL fans. Well, fans don’t win games, but the atmosphere will be down. (Imagine the horrible irony if the Rams do well on their way out of town!) I personally see an offense with fine RBs, pretty good WRs, but a sieve at OL and question marks at QB, not to mention the mystery of OC and the scheme to be played. I believe in our talent on D, but not in Williams’ ability to lead them to consistent success. Given decent luck on injuries, I see us MAYBE inching above .500, but probably not.
After that, though, the prospect of a couple final steps of development and a fresh outlook in Pasadena at the Rose Bowl … that could be pretty damn good.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantI think its worth at least noting that
Snisher has done a pretty good job
building the defense and special teams.Its not like they are blithering idiots
when it comes to personnel.Just seems to me, that its more likely
than not that they are gonna Fix the
OLine.They know everything depends on it.
w
vWell, I have certainly never said they were blithering idiots.
Indeed, I have said quite often that I rate Snead’s performance fairly highly. That’s why I plead for a distinction between Snead and Fisher. I would repeat that plea in this discussion.
I also plead for a recognition of the mixed middle. Snead has built up the talent for the defense and the special teams. He has drafted RBs well, too.
But success in cases A, B, and C does not safely predict success in Case C. One can hit a home run in the 2nd and strike out in the 4th. Also, there are GMs who know how to draft position X but not position Y.
So, I don’t see the logic of your post. Not because I think these guys are idiots. But because A) I see problems and B) these guys have a 3 year track record of failing to solve those problems.
And that’s the part that continues to astonish me about the near-consensus on this board. This assumption that, after 3 years of not getting things done, the Ram FO is to be expected to get them right next year.
Maybe they will. Damn, I hope they do. And you’re right. They HAVE done some things well. I freely acknowledge that those things count. I insist that the failures count as well.
And the odds of success are low. They always are. And for a regime that has not moved the needle significantly in 3 years of trying, I simply cannot understand why anyone would just assume that they they will beat the odds this time.
It’s just a strange dynamic right now, or, at least, it’s strange to me. I listen to the optimistic projections and the assertions that things will be easy, I remember how we have shared these expectations in recent years, and I look back on the string of failures. And I just do not get how folks whose intelligence and perspicacity I esteem can fool themselves yet again.
I just don’t understand it.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantI disagree. When this line has been healthy, it has performed. The results are far from abysmal.
…
Demoff said it. The Rams achilles heel has always been OL injuries.Well, apart from the question of whether any Ram OL in the last decade has been any good (probably not) the issue of injuries has to be faced. It isn’t just a factor that can be dismissed as an aberration.
As I’ve said before, THIS TEAM HAS REPEATEDLY BET ON GUYS WITH INJURY HISTORIES! Those bets have gone bad again and again. Jones is a classic example. They drafted him hurt, he’s still hurt, and the BEST we can say is that we don’t know if he can play. THEY DRAFTED THAT PACKAGE! They own the injury.
And you can’t just set injuries aside as if they don’t count” “Well, in the 6 games our OL was healthy, we were able to …” It doesn’t work that way.
This team has not played with a good OL through a year in at least a decade.
Why one would think it would be easy to suddenly do it this next year I can’t imagine.
Injuries matter. And poor talent pools matter. And we’ve had both for a long time.
I guess we have very different ideas of what an “easy fix” would be.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantPS. What are our building blocks for moving forward?
– A quality Guard/Tackle who gets hurt a lot. A lot.
– Theoretically speaking, a stud rookie who was played at 2 positions and looked sub-standard at LOT. And no Plan B except for the oft-injured OG/OT.
– A mediocre ROT who looked bad, put in a decent year, then reverted to poor play this year … and is out of contract, meaning he might not sign.And … crickets. A bunch of no-name guys or broke down has-beens. Guys described above as unknowns. On a team which, over the last half decade, has been almost completely inept at getting unknowns to play decently. (Barksdale is the only 1 I can think of.)
We need AT LEAST a starting quality OC, OG, and OT (maybe Barksdale, if he re-signs and if last year wasn’t a reversion to his true quality). And we need Robbie to get a LOT better and Saffold to stay healthy. And we need 3-5 backups who can actually play decent football.
How this can be described as an easy fix I really don’t see.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantI tell you what’s deflating–casual fan interest.
I mean, I dunno if that’s true. I have to figure that it has to be.
Another sports scandal, this one striking at the integrity of the sport.
Another Super Bowl with 2 teams coached by guys with reputations and records for cheating.
Who care who wins? I sure as hell don’t. Won’t watch a minute of the game.
I can’t be the only guy in America turned off by all this.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantWe don’t know anything yet about Jones, Rhaney, Bond, Washington, or Baker.
I think we know something. Perhaps not definitive, but something.
Jones, for example, has shown nothing but injuries in 2 years. There has not been, to my knowledge, a single indication that he can play. When he did play, the reports were abysmal.
We know he hasn’t been cut. What that adds up to, we don’t know. But I can’t see that it adds up to much.
As for the others, I know only this. Wells has sucked and been injury-prone for 3 years. And no one has stepped up. I know that. And to me, that’s a black hole at OC. With zero indication of a viable upgrade.
That’s not a hard fix.
I cannot even begin to share this optimism.
This FO has been here for 3 years, spent serious money and draft picks on the OL. And the results have been abysmal. These facts we do know.
To imagine that this bunch, working with a completely uninspiring set of candidates, is suddenly going to be able to turn it around and get our OL to middle-level …
In my opinion that’s fairy tale dreaming. Not by any means an easy fix.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantManziel ended up being exactly the person the New England scouting report said he was.
Indeed.
You guys know me. I ain’t no draftnik.
But, after a few decades of watching the Rams drafts screw up in a business rife with uncertainty, there’s one law of drafting.
Never draft a knucklehead. Never. Never.
And the worst trait in a knucklehead? Competitive laziness.
It never works out.
By virtue of the absurd ...
January 16, 2015 at 4:09 pm in reply to: 2015 Shrine Game … plus looking ahead to the Senior Bowl #16701rflParticipantOn the other hand the play of SEAN HICKEY/T/G/SYRACUSE #60 has been spotty and uninspired. He looks the part and has an NFL body at 6’056/308, with 32.68″ long arms and hands over 10″ wide. Several of us have noted that he may fit better inside at OG at the next level. But it’s hard to tell with his seeming lack of intensity and urgency to date. I felt he was deserving successor to PUGH/GIANTS, but he’s not measuring up at this point.
Deliver me from guys like this.
Assuming its a fair rap.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantSaffold surgery is a success
By Jim Thomas
Saffold had problems with the shoulder in 2013, but it was decided he could continue playing without surgery, wearing a brace, without causing any further damage in 2014. He had a couple of instances where he suffered shoulder dislocations during the season but was able to continue playing.
Even so, Cordasco said, “It was clear this wasn’t going to go away.”
Saffold said during the season that he contemplated having surgery on the shoulder after the ’13 season, but didn’t because of free agency. He originally agreed to terms with Oakland but the Raiders backed out, failing Saffold on their physical because of concerns about the shoulder.
In other words, this problem was KNOWN! Indeed, this must have been what caused OAK to back away.
Some injuries come out of nowhere and no one is to blame. Other injuries are known beforehand, and in that case, a staff is responsible for the decisions it makes.
Now, please understand. I like Saffold a lot and value him. Assuming he overcomes this shoulder issue, I am glad we took him back from OAK and I look forward to him playing very well in future.
But. Having said that. Let’s review:
The Ram FO went into ’14 with a prospective OL including …
* A C who is injury prone and declining in performance
* A LOT who’s been hurt and is declining in performance
* A draft pick, likely Robby, who was remarkably green at pass blocking
* Only 1 clearly effective OG, a guy with a KNOWN bad shoulder
* A bunch of young OLmen who have played marginally or worse.That’s what was known. They are responsible for what they decided to do about it all.
1. They went with their under-performing C who had a predictably bad year. They had no real plan B at C. The guy thewy drafted 2 years ago has apparently shown nothing.
2. The vet LOT predictably played marginally and then got injured. This destabilized the OL.
3. They got a vet FA for ROG who seemed to be credible, but who had declined after an injury. They bet that he would regain skills shown in the past. This acquisition misfired horribly: he played a lot and played abysmally.
4. They Drafted the green LOT but prepped him at OG. He didn’t see the field for a while, then played OG, then moved to LOT when the vet went down, leaving them stuck with the vet ROG. He played pretty poorly on the outside, and might well have been hampered by a lack of prep time at the position.
5. They went along with Saffold’s decision to play with the bad shoulder that OAK had rejected. Result: intermittent in-game injuries and subdued performance.
6. The other young guys generally appear to have been bad picks. Even on a beat up OL, they offered little to no help.
Now, football is played in the real world, not Plato’s Ideal Realm. One doesn’t always have good options at OL. Sometimes, people have to make bets.
But, see that’s what an FO is responsible for. They re-signed Saffold knowing about the shoulder. They took on the burden of an OG likely to play hurt or worse. They at least partially own the results.
They own the decisions on Well, Long and Joseph as well. Beat up guys who have all shown trends of diminishing performance. Those are the guys they trusted.
And they drafted Robby, prepped him at guard, but were then forced to play him at a position he clearly isn’t ready for. They own the results.
Did they have better options? I dunno. Maybe, maybe not. But the OL this year was the result of 3 years of drafting and signing FAs. It contained easily identifiable, predictable problems, all of which were fully discussed beforehand. This is where they went, and they are responsible, just as all staffs are responsible for roster decisions and the bets they represent.
ZN has assured us that OL ain’t a hard fix. To be honest, I don’t buy that. We’ve been yearning for a sound OL for years and years. The best we see is parts of seasons when guys are healthy. And you know what? Fisher has not yet been able to change that. Everyone says he wants a power running game. But he STILL hasn’t built an OL that can support his vision.
He owns that.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantAll righty then.
I won’t beat this to death, though people may feel I am doing so already.
I don’t get the “nothing new” criticism. True, there is nothing new. After 11 years and 3 years of Fisher’s leadership. Losing is not new. Why is this not worthy of comment?
The harping on Sam is weird. I have always liked Sam and feel he would make us better. But, a couple of problems with the blaming of all our problems on Sam:
* Our record with him isn’t much better than with his backups.
* Snead and Fisher made the decision to trust his surgically repaired knee last year. They lost that bet–which I would have taken and been equally wrong.
* I don’t see how anyone can watch those games and simply blame the QB. I thought we didn’t do that around here.Do you guys think we played like winners on a consistent basis this year … apart from the QB? Really? Not sure what games I was watching. ‘Cause I saw a bunch of guys fluctuating wildly between making a few plays and dissolving into chaos. I saw a team that shot itself in both feet, both hands, and any other appendage you’d care to mention, wasting games that were there for the taking, even with the QBing we had.
As for Arians, his superiority in coaching a team to compete in comparison to Fisher’s strikes me as blindingly obvious. I thought that was clear for the world to see in that home contest in which he beat us with nothing but discipline. He consistently has that team at its ceiling. Sometimes that’s a loss, but damn if they don’t compete. Do you really see that in the Rams? Honestly?
I dunno. Clearly, I am out of tune with this board. Obviously, what I see is pretty different from what you guys see. Maybe it is “bottom lining.” I dunno. That’s not how I understand what I am seeing or trying to say. But what the hell do I know?
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantBernie: Rams’ standards are too low
By Bernie Miklasz
…
And Snead and Fisher have clearly upgraded the overall talent. But shouldn’t the talent upgrade translate into more wins? You would think so, but the Rams’ record got worse in 2014.
After winning seven games in 2012 and ’13, the Rams went 6-10 this season.
Despite the team’s backward step in record, Fisher made this claim in his season-ending news conference: “I believe we made progress. I believe the record doesn’t reflect the way this team played.”
This stuff makes me nuts.
How can Fisher or anyone claim that progress was made even though the Rams went from 7-9 in their second season under the new regime to 6-10 in the third season?
If Arizona coach Bruce Arians can lead the Cardinals to an 11-5 record with a roster torn by injuries, and with considerable turmoil at the quarterback position, then the Rams’ 6-10 record should be deemed unacceptable. Going 6-10 in Year 3 isn’t good enough.
…
Overall, here are the starting-QB records under Fisher in STL:
Bradford 10-12-1 …
Kellen Clemens 4-5 …
Austin Davis 3-5…
Shaun Hill 3-5 …
Granted, the Rams had a better record when Bradford started (10-12-1) than when he didn’t start (10-15). But let’s not get carried away here, OK?
…
This gets me back to the Rams’ standards.
I’m not suggesting that Fisher and Snead don’t care, or that they fail to work hard. But the Rams’ standards sure seem to be a lot lower than what we see elsewhere with the teams that have a championship-or-bust mentality. The firings in Denver and Pittsburgh reinforced the point.
In my opinion the Rams’ bar is set awfully low, and this isn’t the first time I’ve said this. When a 6-10 record represents “progress” to the head coach, you can be certain that the standards need to be raised.
Don’t expect that to change.
Why would it? Fisher has two seasons remaining on a generous contract. His boss, Kroenke, is focused on building a Los Angeles stadium and finding a way to move the Rams into it.
When winning isn’t the No. 1 priority for ownership, then it’s much easier for the football people to put a positive spin on a 6-10 record.
See, for me, the focus here isn’t on Bernie. I am not really interested in the question of whether this is Good or Bad Bernie.
The excerpts above express my observations and conclusions about the team pretty well. I think Bernie is telling the truth about a generally inept organization that has yet to turn things around.
How the coaching staff can claim progress after the past season just astonishes me.
And, at the risk of offending people I consider my friends, I’ll just say that I am bewildered by the fact that Bernie’s comments generate more grousing about Bernie than agreement that the Rams have not yet achieved anything in more than a decade.
Making claims to some nebulous level of improvement in talent level does not constitute growth in a league in which achievement is based on the results of a small number of games. You have to show that you can win, Baby. You have only 16 shots at doing it. Each game is precious, with immense pressure on the Win or Loss result. And the Rams have egregiously failed at that competitive challenge for 11 years.
It’s time that they were called on it. Bernie has done so. If you read closely, JT is doing it, too. The Rams standards are so low that a 6-10 season following a 7-9 season can be publicly described by the team leadership as improvement. That ought to be universally seen as appalling.
In my opinion, of course.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantI think the issue with Wilson depends on one’s definition of a QB’s role.
As a tough competitor who can make plays under pressure, Wilson is definitely elite. He is in some ways a throwback QB who would fit into the ’50s era game. He drives the offense without being a spectacular passer–a Bobby Layne type guy.
A guy like this can win–especially on a good team–and make the Hall. He can be a great player.
But a guy like this is probably a bit more dependent on overall team quality. Specifically, he is dependent on a viable running game. I have a hard time seeing Wilson do well without an effective running game. And, indeed, when we have beaten him we have first shut down Lynch. Similarly, such a QB is not really the kind of guy who can pass a team back into a game after falling behind.
Is that a way of saying he is ultimately a 2nd level QB? That’s a matter of personal preference.
Most people would assume that the very best QBs shred defenses with the passing game. Of course, these QBs are also dependent on teammates, especially OL and receivers. But, most observers would probably feel that a great passing QB can overcome more team deficits than the other type. I don’t need to go through the arguments, ’cause you guys know them.
In this sense, Wilson is, IMO, 2nd tier. He is not an elite passer. I have seen the Ram Defense, which has talent but also flaws and limits, shut him down more than once. He simply does not look to me to be an elite passing QB. If you’re looking for that type, Wilson won’t satisfy you.
I suggest that, in the end, the test of a great, great QB lies in his ability to inspire in opponents a sense of inevitability. Playing against a Warner, a Montana or an Elway, or a Unitas, one just never feels confident. Get a lead and you just tremble,m expecting the comeback you can’t stop.
I don’t think Wilson inspires that kind of fear. He can be stopped. Rather readily, if you can hold up to that running game. So, to me, he remains a 2nd tier QB.
But all this is academic. ON A GOOD TEAM–such as his Hawks–Wilson can win, and win, and win. And it’s hard to argue against that.
By virtue of the absurd ...
-
AuthorPosts
