Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
rflParticipantA word of clarification in my use of the term.
For me, the term “power running game” may refer to a running style, but MUST include the ability to shove the ball down the throat of good and well-deployed defenses.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that an O can do this at all times and places. The NFL is too competitive to ever allow any unit to achieve absolute dominance. Hell, the GSOT was slowed considerably at times.
But, to be a power running team, one MUST be able to power through the chains often enough to create a sense of dread among opponents and force defenses to scheme to deal it. SEA has a true power running game, even though it is at times contained, as even we do at times. But SEA breaks the opposition defense down running the football often enough to command the game most of the time, and distort defenses trying to stop them.
All of this is true of any unit. For a decade, we’ve suffered from not having a perimeter passing game good enough to stress the medium yardages that force DBs off the LOS. You can apply the concept to team any strength.
In the NFL, even the worst units are talented enough to have good games. As we did against Indy 2 years ago. But FLASHES of effectiveness are not enough to stress the opposition or, using the phrase WV has isolated, “impose one’s will” on them.
You cannot have a power running game that only very rarely overpowers anyone.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 8 months ago by
rfl.
By virtue of the absurd ...
March 24, 2015 at 2:49 pm in reply to: How do people feel about Foles right now, before anything else happens? #21375rflParticipantDo we know what that is?
Well, I know that what I saw last year was an OL that was rarely able to open holes to get the running game going. I know that WASN’T it. And we have less now than what we had then.
They’ll do something. But if it is not something fairly dramatic, we will not have a power running game.
And besides, when I personally talk about a power running game, I never think of the Rams as having ever intended to be run run run. It always has been, and always intended to be, a balanced offense, with around 53-55% passing.
I think it’s clear that I have never spoken of a “run run run” approach. I’ve always had a pretty nuanced version of offense.
Here’s what I am saying. And it has nothing to do with “run, run, run.”
First, an effective running game must be able to impose its will on defenses, even when they are looking for the run. It doesn’t have to be a numbers game of carries. It does have to be a weapon that defenses have to take seriously and that can significantly carry the burden of the game. A “power running game” of the sort generally attributed to Fisher teams, is capable of grinding out 1st downs in the face of schemes designed to stop it without the secondary orienting to the passing game.
Second, such a running game requires competent OL. I’ve argued scores of times that you don’t have to have stars. You do need solid professionals. RBs cannot impose a team’s will on a defense without solid OL play. I mean, this is too obvious to belabor further.
Third, we did not have such an OL last year and have only had flashes of solid OL play since Fisher got here. As a result, in 3 seasons, we have only in brief flashes been able to impose our will running the football. The rest of the time, the (limited) success and (abundant) failure of our offense has been put in the hands of the QBs and WRs. Fisher has not displayed a true power running game since he got here.
Fourth, the Rams have, so far, made only the most minimal move so far to even regain last year’s low standard of play, let alone improve it. They almost certainly have a plan, but whatever it is, it shows no sign of urgency, it continues to risk missing out on any of the few available vet FAs, and it has, until now at least, subordinated the OL to DT, LB, and, notably, QB, in off season activity.
Fifth, in light of 1-4, the commonly held assumption that Fisher is committed to a power running game or that, as the line I quoted put it, this team is not built to depend on the QB, is highly suspect. Through Fisher’s 1st 3 years, with very few exceptions, the Rams’ few successes have precisely been based on QB performance. ZN, your points about Foles themselves support the idea that he is attractive to the Rams precisely BECAUSE they think he can throw quickly and effectively to offset the lack of a power running game.
Sixth, unless they fill the glaring holes in the OL with competence, with improvements on recent levels of talent, you can forget about power running this year. At best I can imagine a running game that gets going in fits and starts beneath a QB effectively throwing medium routes with quick releases and relying on Mason to occasionally break off a reasonably big play when the stars align perfectly. But play action will get us very little and we will NOT be able to impose our will running the ball.
Again, this is all intended to oppose stock league and fan assumptions about Fisher with the actual evidence of what he has done so far. And to caution against having expectations that diverge from what the team is actually up to.
I feel it bears repeating, though others may not: this team will have a power running game and alleviate pressure on QBs WHEN IT ASSEMBLES A COMPETENT OL AND NOT BEFORE! And it hasn’t happened yet.
By virtue of the absurd ...
March 23, 2015 at 2:50 pm in reply to: How do people feel about Foles right now, before anything else happens? #21315rflParticipantWell, we’ll see. It could be they sign Barksdale and Wiznewski
and spend two of the first three picks on the OLine.Indeed. And you know I’d be happy.
Remember, I’m just reacting to the comment that the franchise direction is not based on the QB. And to me, the ACTIONS of the group so far indicate that they value the OL–and a true, power running game–less than they do these other resources. Even if they do as you say, they RISKED getting no one very good in a thin FA class for OL. They’ve already risked that.
We’ll see on the draft. As you say. I would love to see us draft Scherf, though people say he’ll be gone. I’d love a true, #10-worthy OL pick.
But I have this sneaking suspicion that that won’t happen.
‘Course, I was way off in my expectations regarding Sam’s fate … so what do I know?
By virtue of the absurd ...
March 23, 2015 at 2:46 pm in reply to: Kroenke ready to show detailed stadium plans … plus other relocation things #21314rflParticipant2 quick responses.
1) Stan is taking the Rams to LA. Nothing will beat that proposal.
2) The skylights look great … but, my Lord, in So Cal? What will be the energy costs of keeping that place cool?
Maybe there are geothermal solutions? I dunno. Looks energy-expensive, though.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantGetting Barksdale back would be big for us. Praying he is back in the fold.
I mean, yes, but …
He’s really not any better than mediocre. Yet you’re right in that he would be a foundation stone for us. As limited as he is.
The overall lack of talent in that unit is astonishing.
By virtue of the absurd ...
March 23, 2015 at 2:40 pm in reply to: NFL will scrap it's TV blackout policy for the 2015 season – Tweet #21310rflParticipantThat’s amazing!
Sounds like good business, to me. Maybe 4 decades after it would have started being good business!
Tell you what, the Rams will have no home games this year. As a lame duck franchise with the few remaining fans able to watch on TV, they will have empty seats and seats bought by opposing fans!
This going to be a tough year for the players.
By virtue of the absurd ...
March 23, 2015 at 2:30 pm in reply to: How do people feel about Foles right now, before anything else happens? #21308rflParticipantFoles is consistently very good in the short passing game, but inconsistent so far throwing deep.
Numbers (plus some watching) say that Foles is very good at the short, ball control passing game AND very good when he gets rid of the ball quickly. If the Fisher offense continues as is, as we know they tend to mix ball control passing and power running and the whole time set up all kinds of big plays.
I would cite this in support of what I just argued above.
The thing is, you can have a short-passing game without consistent running. Sam did his best work a few years ago throwing underneath with a limited running game and suspect OL. Indeed, you can use a quick-throwing attack to offset weak OL problems WITHOUT running the ball too much.
If you can run the ball, then of course it’s far better. But I don’t see them acting as if they are deeply committed to a running game.
I suggest that we stop talking about a power running game until we see them assemble the OL to make one possible.
Foles may be asked to carry the offense throwing quickly. And, with a great defense and improved WRs, this could be effective enough. Use Cook, Quick and Britt’s big bodies and Bailey’s route running with some Tavon thrown in. I bet they are counting on that a lot more than on developing a better than mediocre OL.
By virtue of the absurd ...
March 23, 2015 at 2:24 pm in reply to: How do people feel about Foles right now, before anything else happens? #21307rflParticipantFirst of all, this is not a team built around the QB.
Hmmmmm. I wonder about this, Man. In fact, I think it’s an error.
Fisher’s pre-Rams track record says that he builds a team around defense and rushing the football. Not the QB. Now, let’s set aside the issue of how he achieved his best results with a really good QB.
I guess I would suggest that Fisher’s record with the Rams challenges this common assumption.
The simple fact is that our offense has for 3 years been dependent on and limited by QB play. Zack S. had a couple dominant games in ’13, but their commitment to him has been slow to develop, spotty, and short-lived. Mason has shown even greater potential, but has been little utilized. Most of our successful games have come from passing, and, to my eye, Schotty turned first to the passing game and only reluctantly to the run. I think the facts of performance oppose the common assumption that Fisher runs a power running game.
Of course, personnel has been an issue. And Snead has supported Fisher in spending FA $ and draft picks on the OL. The results are what we all know them to be. Lots of misses and few hits on the OL, with 3 good RBs drafted.
OK, so one might say, “Well, the FO has missed on some OL prospects, but they’ll keep going until they get it right. Then we’ll see the ‘REAL’ Fisher offense/team, develop.”
The problem with this view again lies in the record. The WV postulate–that they know everything rides on the OL and will commit to solving it–is not playing out so far. Snead has made several substantive moves this off season. Only 1 has involved the OL, and that was for a guy projected as a BUP. The biggest FA acquisitions have been at SAM and DT. The THEORY is that they are trying to play the market shrewdly, but this is a risky strategy if you rate the value of the OL as highly as WV and most of us do.
And, see, very theme of this thread argues against PA’s assumption. It’s hard to argue that the team is built around a QB when by far the most substantive move made by the FO this off-season has been … the acquisition of a new QB. Values are expressed in actions. We swapped QBs and gained some cap room. Now, had we then gone out and spent that cap room on the OL, one could support the idea that QB is not central to what we are doing. We have not done that. We may STILL spend cap on the OL, but, again, we are risking the “big 3” OL FA’s signing elsewhere. You don’t do that if the OL and running game are more central to your thinking than the QB is.
I always think it’s important to ask, “What do the actions tell us?” To me, the actions and results of this FO tell me the following:
1. Fisher famously came here figuring QB was a variable he didn’t have to worry about as he built the roster. Sam’s injuries upset this assumption and led to a swap for a “healthier” option.
2. The FO has learned bitter lessons here about acquiring OL talent. Wasted $ and draft picks have led to very disappointing results. They don’t want to waste resources again.
3. They have decided that they can get the same, mediocre results they have recently gotten with less $ and lower draft picks.
4. Meanwhile, they are committing resources to already good units that they feel more confident in supporting: DT, LB, DB, etc. They’d rather have a surpassing defense and a mediocre OL than a pretty good OL and defense.
5. They believe that pretty good QBing can cover for a mediocre OL more easily than they can develop a dominant running game. It’s really HARD in today’s NFL to run the ball consistently. They feel that a healthy, good QB can toss the ball to a reasonably talented receiver corps even if the “power running game” never truly emerges.
If my reading is at all correct, it means, first, that this team is being built on A) the hope of a Top 5 defense and B) a decent QB’s ability to cover OL limitations with a quick-passing game.
This would, of course, go against all the problems we observe and against common assumptions about who Fisher is. (I keep arguing that Snead and Fish are distinct, but as long as Fish has the bigger name, he’ll be identified with the team’s approach.) We can kvetch all we want, but I would argue that this sort of approach actually stays the course with what they’ve been doing.
And IF this is our trajectory, then we could make predictions:
* They’ll sign FA OL at bargain prices and believe Boudreaux can coax tolerable performances with them and developing youngsters. If they lose out on Joe B. Wis, and … the other guy, they’ll figure, “Well, OK, we’ll make the dregs work.”
* They’ll similarly pick up “bargain” OL in the draft. Robbie didn’t instantly solve their OL problem, and the above would suggest that they won’t draft OL in the 1st again. I am becoming increasingly expectant that they’ll go to another position at #10–maybe on defense!
* They will NOT develop the mythic Fisher power running game this year. They’ll get value out of Mason and Cunningham, but they will pass a lot. They’ll look for ways to complete passes over a mediocre OL … the SEA model.
* The OL will remain mediocre this year, except perhaps for Robbie developing and Saffold remaining healthy.
That’s what I am expecting. I think Fisher is building a far more QB-reliant team than the myth allows people to see.
Will it work? I dunno. It’s scary to me, as risky as what Chip is doing in Philly. We’ll see.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantGuy makes a lot of sense.
The Rams have been patient and could be rewarded with a bargain, but if some of these guys start landing elsewhere, it’s fair to start wondering just how they expect to protect the quarterback and open holes in the running game next season.
Puts the case in 1 sentence. Indeed, indeed.
Dave Bettlach @ramsffaan
JT puts the odds of Rams staying in STL at 46-54…how about you?@nwagoner: I’m not much of a fan of putting arbitrary numbers on things but I would say that if I did, they’d be lower than that. I just think that Stan Kroenke has the money to move mountains and get what he wants, unlike the owners in San Diego and Oakland, and his proposal is a better site and option than Carson as far as I can tell. At the end of the day, it doesn’t seem wise to bet against Kroenke.
Yep. I think JT is stubbornly optimistic.
By virtue of the absurd ...
March 21, 2015 at 3:43 pm in reply to: How do people feel about Foles right now, before anything else happens? #21219rflParticipantGood thread.
When I saw the headline of the 1st post, I had one thought. And numerous guys here say the same thing:
It depends on the OL.
From what I read, Foles with A) a strong running game and B) solid pass blocking would be a pretty desirable QB. Better than we’ve had in a long time, apart from a few stretches when Sam was healthy and had some tools. I think his record indicates that, under good conditions, he CAN light it up. He has that in him.
With a poor OL, however, indications are that Foles would struggle worse than many.
And here we sit, waiting on the OL. That is pretty much what our whole board is doing. And I think we all understand that, until the OL situation breaks one way or the other, we won’t know much.
I think this is probably a board consensus.
A last point, though. Foles and Sam both have injury histories.
Foles’ injuries, however, don’t scare me. They’re bone breaks and a concussion. Concussions can become a problem, but if it’s just 1 it should be OK. And bone breaks heal well.
Knees and ACLs are long term problems. I personally feel that Sam’s injury record is far worse than a comparison of missed games can indicate.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantThe Rams asked Brockers to handle more of a nose tackle position, with his primary task to line up over the center and take on multiple blockers to create more favorable matchups for Donald playing the three-technique. That was a departure from the traditional left and right tackle assignments that he had played since arriving in St. Louis.
The result was a career low in sacks (two) and a second-lowest output in tackles (32). Moving Brockers hurt his numbers, but it helped the rest of the defense get rolling over the final half of the season when the Rams went from the bottom of the league in sacks to near the top.
This insightful–by the Rams and by the writer.
Brockers is too often blamed for being what the article refers to (not so insightfully) as “no more than steady.” But that’s his great strength, and it’s a really valuable one. Set an anchor and take on the brunt of the OL firepower to free up other DL to make the splash plays. Last year, I thought B and Donald made a superb TEAM at DT.
I know. You guys all know this. I just wish pundits weren’t so perpetually obsessed with flash.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantWhen is there a chance for the team to make a uniform design change. It
by Jack Youngblood 4:08 PMBe a nice touch for the 2016 LA Rams, huh?
by jthomas 4:08 PMDeep down, I think JT knows. He keeps refusing to move his odds and insisting that the team hasn’t got the votes. But how much faith can you have in billionaires shooting down a peer offering them a great deal just because of rules supposed to protect fans in small towns?
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantAlso, maybe they just don’t care because at this time next year, JT will be covering high school football.
Indeed. This is most likely true.
And I think it’s what’s driving JT’s ire. This is the real issue.
One might suggest that this is in itself a tell tail regarding the likelihood of the team moving. As you say, they are starting not to care what StL media think. They figure they’re moving on, and they handled the media appropriately.
To me, all signs point that way. The owner is determined to move, he owns the land, and he has a great deal for a stadium and for the league. I really don’t see how anyone is going to stop all that.
Ya gotta feel for JT and the StL perspective he represents. But the team is beginning to leave him behind.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantIs that what we’re settling for? Barnes? I don’t recall him doing much.
And then there is the Jones enigma. Who knows? I am profoundly skeptical of the guy, but then we have seen so little of him.
Damn, I am tired of lousy OL play. A freaking decade of it.
I remember how Fisher’s Titans would run with power. And I keep wondering when Fisher will compile enough talent to do it FOR US rather than TO US.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantWell, I meant 1/11th of the consensus of what we have available to spend.
By virtue of the absurd ...
March 19, 2015 at 1:56 pm in reply to: OL in free agency … Barksdale, Blalock, Wisniewski, etc. #21023rflParticipantYeah, I’m impatient about the o-line. I’m trying not to be, but I’m failing…
Indeed.
I guess they’re playing a game of chicken with the FA market for OL. They read the market as breaking toward them in time, apparently.
Hope they’re right.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantWhat are the chances of Austin Davis competing for the starting job, or possibly being traded if the Rams pick a QB in the draft? What about Keenum?
by Ramway 4:23 PMI could see a scenario where the Rams draft a QB, and have Davis and Keenum slug it out for the No. 2 job in camp and the preseason.
by jthomas 4:24 PMDamn, I hope so.
If we don’t draft a top 4 QB–and I imagine we probably won’t–we will regret it.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantJT is really, really pissed off.
Snead and Fisher apparently broke the unwritten rules about playing the game cagey, but not blowing your credibility with your team’s beat reporters.
I still haven’t really heard a good theory about why they played it this way.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantThanks, Ag.
Affordable. But, still, roughly 1/11 of our cap space?
Need to sign some starters soon …
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantJoe Barksdale and Justin Blalock are still in play, but if they sign Barnes, it probably eliminates Stefen Wisniewski. imo
fwiw Snead indicated that they would address the line in the draft. Fisher is still lying to JT.
Ag, I am wondering what the $ on Reynolds is. Does it make a dent in the cap margin? If so, that would probably suggest that they are projecting him to start. Yet his description makes him sound like a good swing guy for 2nd string. As a swing BUP, he may not punch too big a hole in the cap.
I am HOPING that they are planning on signing Joe B. and that they aren’t deluded.
But then we need an OC. Can Barnes be trusted with that key position?
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantWould he get his pick-6’s if he was
playing even with the WR
from the start, though?I think so, but it’s more than just a matter of pick 6s. More than INTs and more even than passes defended.
JJ can run with WRs. That’s his gift and few CBs really have that gift. The way he is generally played, he can’t really use it.
Other CBs have to play smart and read. They do that better and get burned less. But they don’t have his physical gifts.
Now, what the hell do I know? But …
I would predict that if he played up a lot, he would choke off a lot of pass routes. The biggest result would be, IMO, more QB hurries and sacks from the front 7. I think he AND THEY would play better in aggressive deployments.
But, hey. Maybe I’m just wishing. I do know that playing CBs 11 yards off the LOS 79% of the time depresses the hell out of me.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantI agree with what you say. Aeneas said that he just needs to be smarter about when to be aggressive.
I agree with your agreement.
And of course, Aeneas was a world class DB. I doubt JJ will ever be that. And if he played smarter, he’d be better.
But the DC has to be smarter in how he uses him, as well.
Lots of players look great playing a role that matches who they are and bad playing another role … and vice versa.
By virtue of the absurd ...
March 18, 2015 at 5:22 pm in reply to: Big Board: Lack of sizzle doesn't mean this class lacks substance #20895rflParticipant6. Brandon Scherff, OT, 6-5, 319, 5.05, rSr, Iowa: Scherff could just prove the best in the long line of blockers tutored by Hawkeyes coach Kirk Ferentz, which is quite an accomplishment considering that 13 Iowa offensive linemen have been drafted since he took over in 1999. Scherff won big points with scouts for his toughness, battling back from a torn meniscus and corrective surgery on Sept. 8 to start against rival Iowa State five days later. Team doctors want to check his recovery. Scherff is powerful, tough and tenacious, and I see him as one of the “safer” prospects in the draft, though his ultimate position in the NFL could be at right tackle or guard.
12. La’el Collins, OT, 6-4, 305, 5.12, Sr, LSU: Collins doesn’t get the national attention of other tackles in this class, but the big man is surprisingly agile in pass protection and is a mauler in the running game. Collins isn’t an elite athlete and will likely wind up inside at guard or right tackle in the NFL rather than at his customary left tackle position. He has the square build and physical nature to handle the move and saw snaps at left guard in Mobile.
15. Ereck Flowers, OT, 6-6, 329, 5.31, Jr, Miami (Fla.): Flowers played left tackle at Miami but may need to move to the right side in the NFL. Despite his massive frame, Flowers is light on his feet and balanced in pass protection. He is aggressive and active as a run blocker, including looking for defenders in pursuit — offering precisely the type of “nastiness” scouts prefer.
These are Rang’s top 15.I figure we need AT LEAST one of the top OL prospects.
#12 or #15 sound fine to move inside at OG. (I figure Scherf will be gone.)
Then I want Hundley or Grayson.
Don’t care which round we get any of these guys. But we really need a quality OG/OT and probably EITHER Hundley or Grayson.
If we signed Joe B. and Wisnewski and drafted the above pair, I’d be happy with the off-season.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantI am ecstatically underwhelmed.
Indeed.
I suppose none of it matters until it’s all said and done.
But, Lord, this business of filling actual roster HOLES–as in no one signed at OL–after picking up DTs and LBs is a scary way to go.
I guess the reasoning is that the costs drop as the FA market rolls out. But, damn, get us some quality for the OL before it’s all gone!
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantRams announce they have signed OT Garrett Reynolds; probable third tackle.
Third? I didn’t know we had a 2nd.
And the guy plays better at OG. So we sign him for #3 OT? I can’t help but think that he’ll be mainly at OG.
I wonder if this suggests that we are close on Joe B.
And of course we need to see the $ he signed for.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantI’ve said this before, but I think JJ has to be used correctly.
Look. He’s an aggressive player. The downside of that is that he makes mistakes.
But, there is an upside. He actually CAN make plays.
So, how does one use him?
1) Move him back off the LOS 7 yards. Take him out of close contact with the WR, reducing the value of his instinctive ability to go with cuts. Frustrate and bore him. Make him antsy, more liable to bite on a chance to come up. And limit the effectiveness of his gifts.
or
2) Make the most of his gifts. Play him up, aggressively. Maximize his ability to run with WRs. Make a virtue of his aggressiveness and give him chances to make plays. And provide some backup over the top.
What do you think?
And how has he been played?
And don’t forget, #1 tends to negate the impact of our pass rush. #2 maximizes its impact.
JJ is not a balanced, all around CB. Yet, I believe a smart DC would get value from his gifts. I KNOW we are not doing that.
Glad to see all the guys saying they don’t trust GW. That’s correct. Don’t trust him. Make him prove he can actually deploy our talent effectively. When he does, I’ll praise him.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantCheap help on the Oline…. Ain’t nothing wrong wth that
Well, cheap help is better than expensive busts!
I’m sure tired, though, of making due with low level OL talent. For a bleeding decade.
And I am amazed at how weak our OL efforts have been when Fisher clearly wants to rely on a power running game. You cannot have that with an OL of merely cheap talent.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantHmmm. Never heard of the guy. But, there’s this: http://www.prideofdetroit.com/2015/2/18/8052233/lions-free-agents-2015-garrett-reynolds.
Excerpts:
Case for re-signing him
Reynolds’ versatility proved to be extremely valuable in 2014. He initially joined the team as an offensive guard, and he was brought back just days after the first game of the season as an offensive tackle. He immediately stepped in as the starting right tackle due to injuries to the Lions’ starter and backup, and he helped keep things afloat on the O-line throughout the season with various players going down. Considering he should be a cheap option, the Lions could do a lot worse than Reynolds from a depth standpoint.
Case against re-signing him
Although Reynolds was versatile, there was a noticeable drop-off when he was in the game at right tackle in 2014. I guess that makes sense considering Reynolds wasn’t at his normal position and was the Lions’ third-stringer, but undrafted rookie Cornelius Lucas jumped him on the depth chart at tackle as the season progressed. It’s true that Reynolds is a better fit at guard, but part of being versatile is being able to perform well at multiple positions. If that’s what the Lions want out of a backup offensive lineman, then there may be better options out there.
Final verdict
Considering the Lions don’t really have any proven depth at guard, it would be wise to re-sign Reynolds. As mentioned earlier, he should be a cheap option, and the fact that he can slide outside to tackle if needed is valuable considering how many injuries the Lions dealt with on the O-line last season. Guard is certainly a better fit for Reynolds, but having someone with experience at multiple positions on the offensive line is important for when emergency situations arise on game day.
By virtue of the absurd ...
March 17, 2015 at 5:45 pm in reply to: OL in free agency … Barksdale, Blalock, Wisniewski, etc. #20799rflParticipantPretty quiet, apparently, on the FA OL front.
Not sure time is on the side of the Rams on this.
By virtue of the absurd ...
rflParticipantI think a culture change would impact football in a positive way. I’d love to see it.
It’s a tough issue, no doubt.
Good discussion. Thanks for letting me rant a bit.
By virtue of the absurd ...
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 8 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
