rfl wrote:

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.

Yeah. I’m in your camp with this one, RFL. I felt like we’d be doing more in FA with o-lineman, especially after the Long and Wells cuts, and then the Bradford trade. I “assumed” those three moves were gonna lead to some spending on the o-line.

Well, maybe the Rams are right. Maybe the market will break in their favor and they’ll sign some good, but not expensive O-lineman.

Right now, our o-line won’t get this team above .500. Even if Foles is healthy for 16 games and plays well, this team won’t make the playoffs. We don’t have enough playmakers. But with a good O-line, yeah, we’ve got a shot at the playoffs.

If our defense “starts slow”, again, and the o-line is below average, we’re in for another wasted season, imo.

This is a good thing, because I don’t believe a single word that comes out of Chip Kelley’s mouth.

I think Chip is far from done with his wheeling and dealing.

If the offense is better, the D should be better. But I have no idea how that’s gonna work out? If our O continues to rank in the bottom third of the league in almost every category, then… meh.

I’d be happy if the D just cut down on giving up big plays.

rfl wrote:

See, I think this is backwards thinking. Checks will lead people to risk their lives. Indeed.

My point is the SOURCE of those checks! The checks arise from a massively consistent consensus in the football culture about what “we want.” Change the culture, and you change the source of the checks.

My question is this: are we willing to imagine a game that does less damage to brains?

It has to be far more than a few rules tweaks. They don’t work anyway. We have rules to “protect” QBs and they distort the game because they don’t change the fact that violent men armed with brutal weapons in the form of helmets are trying to stop the QBs. The rule can’t change that core reality.

The CULTURE has to change. That will change the source of the checks.

And it has to be done at a far more organic, core level than the play of the professionals in the league. Remember, tens of thousands of young men, many of them children, are affected by this. It’s not just NFL guys. Hell, I played a game mildly concussed once at Div. III level.

And that, really, is where change will have to happen. In a sense, I think it’s inevitable. There will be lawsuits involving Pee Wee leagues and school districts and gradually parents will demand change. Eventually, those changes at the grassroots level will change the game and people’s expectations.

Of course, all that will take time. A generation or more.

Which is American football’s existential threat. If changes aren’t made faster, there is a good chance that enough parents will sign their kids up for soccer or la crosse to undermine the football fan base. That actually seems to me to be a fairly likely scenario. I don’t think we’re all that far from a tipping point where we become a soccer nation. And parents of children will lead the way.

I agree with you, RFL. I really do. I think a culture change would impact football in a positive way. I’d love to see it.

Our culture moves so slowly, though, unless something catastrophic happens. And even then, it has to effect a lot of wealthy, and middle income, white people. That’s when the shit hits the fan.

As for parents, yeah, I could see them sending little Johnny to play soccer, baseball, whatever, instead of football. Football still rules the roost, though, at least in popularity. But could it lose ground to other sports because of the long-term injuries? Yeah, imo. It could. It may even be inevitable, without some changes to the league.

So to your question – “are we willing to imagine a game that does less damage to brains?”

It’s just my opinion, of course, and I hate to say this, but right now the answer our culture would give you is, “hell no”. Personally, I would like to see less damage to everyone and every body part. But I just don’t see it happening without players being the driving force behind it.

There was an interview, several years ago, with Carson Palmer and some other vets. It was one of those “round table” discussons. I don’t remember who was running it. But one of the questions was about what would cause the NFL (the league) to change the culture among players and coaches, as it relates to safety. Carson said “someone would have to die on the field.”

Now Carson is a pretty smart guy, and I don’t think he’s prone to hyperbole, although he could be. But that whole room went silent. It hit home with everyone there.

So our football “fan culture” needs to change, but it needs to change with players, too. And imo, the players have more power to instigate that change, and faster, than anyone else.

I don’t know. We might see a player retire early, once in a great while, due to injury risk. But I think the NFL will keep raising the salary cap, throw more money at the players, and make it harder to walk away.

It’s not a bad bargaining chip for the union, though.

zn wrote:

Hey WB.

Public service thing: http://theramshuddle.com/topic/board-stuff-using-quote-please-read/

Thanks

Hey, it worked. Okay, that was easy. Thanks!

zn wrote:

Winnbrad wrote:
PFF rates Fairly as “good” overall, whatever that means.

Because the Rams think he can be more than that, and they think they are just the guys to bring it out of him.

They were right about Britt, so, they could be right about Fairley.

In terms of the OL…they still have some free agency moves left and there’s a draft coming and they may also think they have a guy on the roster already. So the OL has plenty of time to pull together.

I know you’re right. I’m just impatient about the O-line.

Fingers crossed…

Zooey wrote:

Just in terms of positional preference, I would prefer a veteran center over a veteran guard.

But I don’t know anything about Wiz or Blalock.

It is scary, though, how eager the Raiders were to move on from Wisniewski.

Yeah. The scuttlebutt is the Raiders felt like Wiz wasn’t gonna become the “elite” center they wanted. They said he regressed last year. Plus, the Raiders had a crap load of cap space, and Hudson was available.

So a perfect storm I guess.

Wiz is gonna end up somewhere, and right now Seattle wants him, bad. That bugs me. I don’t want Seattle to get him. I want their O-line to stink.

Wisniewski would be a huge upgrade over Wells. I’m not concerned about any “limits” he may have. Hudson was the best center on the market, and he’s gone.

Wisniewski is better than anyone we’ve had a center in a long time. Plus, signing him would take him away from Seattle.

The only questions are cost, and does he want to play for another potentially losing team? If he wants to go to Seattle, and play for a ring, then it’s gonna be tough for teams like the Rams or Bucs to sign him.

Seattle has a hole at center. I’d love for that to last all year.

wv wrote:

This is my own Wild-Speculation. No evidence for it whatsoever,
but i wonder if Bradford’s “leadership style” just
didnt quite jive with Fisher. I dunno.

w
v

I don’t know. It’s a good question, though. Maybe Fisher wanted a more “firey” leader on the field/locker room. I don’t know. It’s certainly possible.

So we could add that to the list of stars that aligned to make this deal happen. The Rams also got, from what I have read, a more intense guy in Foles.

There. Speculation enhanced! That’s exactly what the interwebs are for! 🙂

PA Ram wrote:

The free agent signings are targeting the defense.

I expect the draft may go heavy on offense.

Although I’d be surprised if they didn’t sign at least one veteran lineman.

Yeah. I’d be surprised and disappointed if the rams didn’t sign 2 O-lineman. I hope they do!

Absolutely, yes. There is no position in the NFL more important than QB, and it’s not even close. The best teams have a good one.

I say draft one every year. At least one.

Damn sure not me. I never thought we’d trade Bradford. Not with that ugly contract, anyway.

What a game!

Agree with RFL. Foles can move. I’m not sure where people are getting the “no mobility” stuff from.

His pocket presence seems fine to me. Better than Bradford. I especially like the way Foles steps up in the pocket with very little hesitation. Keeps his eyes down-field while he does it, too. I know it’s a highlight reel, but still, I see some traits that look good.

I can see him doing well in the Fisher offense. And he costs less than $2 million.

rfl wrote:

PS. In responding to PA, I think there’s a key question of projection:

How do we see ourselves this year? Are we …

A) hoping to breakthrough into the playoffs? If we are building a playoff team with middling QB play, then we aren’t going to have a shot at a good rookie QB for some time.

B) expecting another mediocre year and a top 10 draft slot again? If this is being written off as a transitional, lame duck year, then one could build up the roster and go for a rookie QB next year.

I’d hate to think the FO was leaning toward B. I think it would be a precarious way to go. And my sense–it may be no more than that–is that they are leaning toward A. I’m not sure the Bradford trade makes sense with B.

It’s A. They need the cap space for more players, and rookie signings. And Foles is good enough. For 1.5 Million, he’s a steal.

My feeling is the Rams are looking for a QB in the first round. They could trade down (if possible), and still be fairly safe. The majority of teams in the bottom half of the draft already have good QBs. That’s why they’re in the bottom half.

The Jets just traded a 7th for Fitzpatrick, by the way. So that (I think) removes the Jets from the 1st round QB draft.

Houston, at 16, is still a wildcard, though. And lots of crazy stuff could happen, of course!

Right now the Rams are talking to O-lineman and LBs. Hopefully, they’ll sign some in the next day or so, and the picture will get a little less muddy.