wv wrote:

zn wrote:

Sometimes the “depends on what it means to you” game goes too far off the tracks.

—————-
Well my ‘own’ subjective, personal, intuition is in alignment with what you seem to think. So in that sense we are in accord. However my main point stands — Its all contested ideological ground. There were many chanters, each meaning ‘something’ and there are many ‘interpreters’ interpreting the meaning in various ways, all colored by individual politics. There’s no way around that.

w
v

There are different interpreters but then, some arguments are better than others.

I really believe what I say…the Wilmont kids were using an attack phrase aimed at the kids who are more likely than they are to suffer any negative effects of immigration. So much for supporting the poor.

It’s as if healthy kids were shouting “hey we have health insurance you losers don’t” to a bunch of kids on crutches.

..

wv wrote:

zn wrote:

I will say this. On other boards, this kind of discussion is fraught and loaded and as often as not, personal. Here, I think people get the principle that you can disagree with a poster in one thread and at the same time agree in another. We don’t let the discussion get loaded and antagonistic.

If you don’t agree, then you’re under arrest. Don’t tempt me either.

…

============
As i recall the GSOT Defense just blew up after the 99 season. Lots of injuries and age caught up with em, right. It wasn’t Martz fault. He actually rebuilt the D with Lovie as i recall.

And didnt Martz ‘ask’ for a good personnel guy and zygmunt/georgia/shaw wouldnt give him one? Or somethin like that?

w
v

The 2001 defense fell apart too. Cause of things like thinking Jimmy Kennedy was worth a high pick. In 2000, though, he ran an offensive draft in a year when they were returning 4 starting DL who had all had off-season surgery. Now THERE’S a warning sign.

Martz WANTED a huge say in personnel.

No what he asked for (and didn’t get) was a pro personnel guy. That’s a very specific thing that would have helped. But only so much. Look at those drafts from those years, which are filled with Martz decisions.

Either way one key point…when he did not have either Warner or Bulger, Martz went 6-6 (not counting 2005 which is harder to sort out).

Why? Cause that’s about what you expect from back-up qbs, regardless of the coach.

.

InvaderRam wrote:

i think he’s had enough time to retool the offensive line. the wide receivers. it was his decision to sign guys like cook, britt. draft quick, pead, robinson… austin doesn’t even offer anything on special teams anymore. not worth the contract he was given.

he traded for foles. these decisions lie at his feet.

i give him credit for taking the team as far as he did. and maybe kroenke recognizes this and extends him, but i wouldn’t be disappointed if they went another direction.

i even heard rumors of him taking a front office job. maybe they do that and hire a new hc. preferably i’d want someone with experience working with qbs.

I see all sorts of teams doing fine with receivers of the Rams quality–who will look better when they have a qb. To me that’s a non-issue. It’s not “core.”

I am not putting Foles at anyone’s feet. No one predicted anything like that meltdown. Because it was not predictable. Fisher is about as responsible for that as he is for Bradford’s injuries, or as responsible McCarthy is for Rodgers declining, or as responsible Arians is for Palmer declining.

And he used his time to built OLs well. He built one. The 2013 OL was functional. It was ripped apart by injuries. The only issue with the 2016 OL, IMO, is how inexperienced it is. We have already seen signs that it will do fine.

So it gets back to the real basic point. Name any coach who has done well when he was not able to play a starting caliber qb in 75% of his games.

Other than the, to me, not very convincing effort to blame Foles on Fisher, that fact stands out. And it’s not being dealt with. So on one board people are telling me you can’t blame Arians for Palmer’s decline, and on another board people are telling me that the qb’s decline is the coach’s fault.

Either way, no coach does well when he’s playing back-up caliber qbs (or sometimes worse) in 75% of his games. Martz certainly would not do well under those conditions…why would Fisher.

.

PA Ram wrote:

Jeff Fisher: 31-41 0 playoff appearences. Highest fisnish 3rd in NFC West.

Mike Martz: 53-32 3-4 in playoffs

As you know, I think records taken in themselves can often hide more than they reveal.

Here’s what I can say about both records.

Martz inherited a built team and then destroyed it. He at least had 2 qbs. So to me his record is the story of wasting an opportunity…the downward angle of his season records being an effect of that.

Fisher actually had to build a team, and in fact had to do it twice, while losing qbs right and left and finally starting a rookie. I cannot imagine Martz doing any better under the same circumstances.

The numbers themselves, taken in themselves, hide more than they reveal. Which is usually the case. We know that if we take (say) 4 different coaches with the same record, we could actually find 4 different situations. The raw unanalyzed record would not reveal that stuff. You have to look.

PA Ram wrote:

Make it happen:

Please, no…he wrecked the team he inherited from Vermeil last time he was the HC.

nittany ram wrote:

Perhaps the defense collapsed at the end but it’s not their fault that 14 points was all that was needed to win this game.

We should expect a victory when up by 10 pts with only 6 minutes left but protecting a lead is the responsibility of the defense and the offense.

Well that’s true in general, from an on-paper POV. IMO.

In actual fact, the way the game worked, a cascade of late defensive penalties lost the game.

You can also expect a defense to hold a 10 point lead late. And not give up 14 points in 6 minutes with the game on the line.

And then think of the levels of difference here.

1. They would have won the game IF: the Rams offense were not struggling as it has been for most of the year (with a bounce up in games 3-6).

2. When the Rams defense needed to keep Miami in check to secure the win after not allowing a single 3rd down conversion all game, they chocked and gave them free drives with very stupid penalties.

#1 means, fix the offense. Which won’t happen in a week.

#2 means, come on we’ve seen you win those this year, do not lose your cool in that situation.

So in my own entry in the informal poll, I stick with the “defense lost the game” vote.

..

nittany ram wrote:

Well, I didn’t see the game, but I find it difficult to blame a defense for a loss after giving up ZERO points through three and a half quarters when their offense can only muster 10 points through four.

This team has its weaknesses but defense isn’t one of them.

Well, if you did see the game, in fact the defense DID lose it. When the rain stopped and Miami could throw–that’s late in the game–the Rams committed a series of bad penalties that basically handed the Dolphins the win late.

They did play well before that.

The defense has been a difference late in a couple of games too. Clutch plays sealed some Rams wins.

The penalties today were bad, but, the Miami defense is more penalized than the Rams, so…I don’t regard it as THE difference in a season. The 5 most penalized defensive units (before and not counting today) are

1 Miami Dolphins 44
2 Jacksonville Jaguars 39
3 Los Angeles Rams 36
4 Denver Broncos 36
5 Philadelphia Eagles 32

Notice 3 teams there with winning records. So is it a be-all and end-all?

Having said that, I agree the defensive penalties were the difference in THIS game though.

…

TSRF wrote:

A little background here; Wilton is very rich, very white suburban town. Danbury is a typical Connecticut city; ethnically diverse and poor. I’m interested how yous in other areas of the country view this.

http://www.thehour.com/news/article/Chants-of-build-a-wall-at-football-game-10620733.php

Chants of ‘build a wall’ at football game stir controversy in Wilton
By Pat Tomlinson Updated 5:19 pm, Thursday, November 17, 2016

WILTON — Post-election tensions boiled over at last week’s Wilton-Danbury football game when a group of students started a “build a wall” chant — a favorite line of President-elect Donald Trump.
Days after the incident, Wilton High School Principal Robert O’Donnell addressed the controversy in a letter home to parents on Wednesday.
“It is true that a small number of students did chant this phrase during the game,” wrote O’Donnell. “The students involved in the chanting denied offensive intent, but we recognize that many will feel offended by this particular phrase.”
“We recognize that sentiments continue to run high post-election; as educators, our mission is to help students create dialogue and understanding around controversy and contention. As a result, we will use this incident as a teachable moment, and foster discussion around the rights and corresponding responsibilities inherent in members of a civil society,” he wrote.
Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton on Thursday agreed the incident was a teachable moment and said the lesson would best be learned if the offenders made an apology.
“This is deeply offensive to our community and to our students,” Boughton said. “Whatever the motivation of these students was, if you want them to learn something, they should apologize.”
Boughton on Thursday sent a formal letter to O’Donnell requesting an apology to the Danbury community.
“Part of becoming a citizen and an engaged member of our community is knowing how and when to communicate our beliefs, whether they be political or otherwise,” Boughton wrote. “As educators, we both know the importance of civic responsibility; part of that responsibility is accountability for our actions. Therefore, I respectfully request a formal apology to our student body and to our community at large.”
Wilton High School’s student government later issued an apology on behalf of the student body.
In the letter, the students claimed that though the chant was being “solely used to cheer on the football team’s defense,” the student body does not condone any “politically and socially insensitive behavior.”
“All in all, while we do not believe this behavior is representative of the students as a whole… we do believe it needs to be addressed in a more serious manner so that the entirety of Wilton High School knows that offensive behavior is intolerable,” they wrote.
In the wake of the incident, Connecticut Regional Director Steve Ginsburg of the Anti-Defamation League has reached out to the school’s leadership.
“I can tell you that they are taking it seriously,” Ginsburg said. “We’re focused, like the school is, on ensuring that this is a learning experience and that those who were hurt and offended receive the appropriate apologies.”
Though the incident has caused some hurt within the small community, events like these haven’t been isolated to Wilton, Ginsburg said.
“There have been similar incidents around the country, so we’re obviously concerned about this moment in time where we’re seeing people who are not choosing their words with the kindness and respect towards others like we would hope,” Ginsburg said.
Earlier this month, a private Staples High School Facebook group of about 200 students began circulating offensive and defamatory memes pertaining to gender, race and religion. The group was taken down after it was called to the attention of the administration on Nov. 7.
Keeping school environments positive have been especially difficult recently in the wake of the election between Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton.
According to a report from The Detroit News, students at Royal Oak Middle School in Michigan started chanting “Build that wall,” a day after Trump was elected — a reference to Trump’s pledge to build a wall between the United States and Mexico to stop the flow of illegal immigration.
The Washington Post and other news organizations reported and posted video about an incident in which two students carried a Trump campaign sign through the hallways at York County School in Pennsylvania as another student, according to police, shouted, “white power.”
On the campaign trail, Trump stirred up support from white nationalists, prompting others to fear his tenure. He also called for a ban on Muslims entering the country.
Since the Wilton incident, outraged alumni have since reached out to O’Donnell via a change.org petition, calling for the principal to take a harder stance against chants of this nature, which they call “an act of bigotry and racism.”

There are incidents like this all over the country, though of course not limited to chants at sporting events. Southern Poverty Law Center keeps track of some of them.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch

It’s around 400 that they could get journalistic validation on. Which actually is not that many considering, but still this usually does not happen after elections.

On a personal note, my sister-in-law is iranian. Her father (Mike) lives in Arizona and has been getting regularly harassed. You know, anti-muslim, anti-immigrant stuff. The irony is, he was a general in the Shah’s air force and came to the USA to escape what would happen to him in the Ayatollah’s regime. The further irony is, I have no love for the Shah’s regime–it was brutal beyond belief–though I always avoided talking to Mike about it. And of course I have no love for the present Iranian regime either. Mike is getting harassed because of his looks and his accent and the fact that he’s a practicing muslim.