Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
znModeratorYes indeed that ego of yours.
Beyond that, I want to congratulate you on acting just as I thought you might: As a sore “winner.” Stay classy, bnw.
Tone. Language. Personalized antagonism is not to occur. I mean I know that’s hard this day of all days. But, rules iz rules.
November 9, 2016 at 11:47 am in reply to: The thugs won; the people lost, including Trump's supporters. #57253znModeratorI have a clear conscience, though. It felt good to cast a vote for Jill Stein and against both major party candidates.
I have clear conscience too. I voted for Clinton.
I don’t have to spell out the reasons, and more than obviously, neither do you.
znModeratorBut it woulda been a dark day either way.
w
vNo, I’m sorry. But this is worse. Like, far worse. In fact I expect that soon enough I won’t even have to say that anymore.
…
Yes, there are some political structures and institutions in place that may offer us some semblance of protection, but Trump has made no secret of his hostility towards democratic norms, his indifference towards traditions, and his affinity for authoritarian ideals.
I’m looking for a silver lining. I don’t see one.
znModeratorSo then like Oxygen says, I’m a highly reactive nonmetal.
znModeratorHey, why’d this thread get merged???
It wasn’t merged!
Unless that’s a joke I don’t get, which is possible.
.
znModeratorOne big aspect that made the GSOT so great was Warner/Bulger leading receivers for maximized RAC. I see very little of that from this particular offense. Not only did Warner/Bulger throw to spots, they took it further by leading receivers to enable greater yardage after the catch. The Rams’ current version just seems to lack an identity, a coherent strategy or purpose overall. When it is successful, it just doesn’t seem like it’s a part of a continuous process, or a greater whole. Maybe it was just an illusion that the GSOT years gave me that sense. But they did.
I miss the hell out of that.
To me, that was just Warner. It wasn’t a “system” thing, it was just Warner. And of course he had vastly superior receivers. With the Giants, with a ragged OL and not anything near the same in terms of receivers, Warner looked more ragged too.
I don’t see the Rams as “lacking identity,” I see them as having execution issues. To me this is all just this—when teams lose we can point to a 1000 things that look wrong, when they win we don’t examine it as closely.
So to me what you just described is a team that’s ragged and inconsistent in execution.
Meanwhile I bet if I put up the vid of CK’s 19 straight completions against the Lions, it would seem like they’re just fine at the system level.
So I just see execution issues. I don’t think it goes any deeper or further than that.
The GSOT was a rare type of offense, an exception, and not a standard IMO.
…znModeratorIt’s not like Air Coryell or any of the revisions like Martz’s.
Yeah it’s a multi-tinkered with variation but its roots are Coryell.
Weird. It just doesn’t look like it could come from the Coryell tree. Perhaps because it’s usually a mess? Lots of pivot points that might be “blamed” for that, from coaching, staff, to players, obviously. Holistically as well. But it seems like it has zero in common with the old Dan Fouts/Coryell offenses, or the GSOT Rams.
We’re just seeing it differently. To me it looks Coryell. Remember, the Fouts and Martz versions were just branches. There’s also other branches—the Johnson/Turner/Aikman Dallas version and the Gibbs/Washington version and the Vermeil/Saunders/Kansas City version. Heck before Martz arrived Vermeil/Rhome were running a Coryell system variant. Coryell offenses are as diverse as WCOs are now.
I don’t think it looks like a mess, at the system level. I think they look like they have various kinds of execution issues.
Look at the Tavon catch for 17 at 1:17 left in the 3rd (thrown from Rams 23). The ball is in the air before Tavon even makes his break. CK threw to a spot. So there’s a lot of that in there.
znModeratorIt’s not like Air Coryell or any of the revisions like Martz’s.
Yeah it’s a multi-tinkered with variation but its roots are Coryell.
znModeratorYou are parroting the fraudsters. Go to http://www.blackboxvoting.com to learn the truth. Benny Smith of Memphis, TN discovered and proved the fraud that never gets reported by the MSM.
I was commenting directly on the fact that republicans in different states throughout the country deliberately set up campaigns to exclude various groups of people from voting.
That has culminated in a number of court cases.
Unless you openly speak out against that, you’re just being shamelessly partisan.
But…I don’t expect you to speak out against that, because on this issue as with many others, you probably are just simply and only partisan.
…
znModeratorwe’re just discussing the team we hold dear.
no problems. i like it. good conversations to be had here.
Actually this is a pretty doggone good post-game thread, especially considering it’s the 47th loss in a row.
Can anyone remember them losing this many CLOSE games?
Not this many games. Obviously there’s been that. Though of course 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2011 were worse. But this many CLOSE games?
znModeratorI saw the credits scene with Thor–but I missed the other one(Ugh–I HATE when Marvel does this). What did I miss?
Spoilers ahead for those who want to see this.
Okay, in the final credits scene, we see Pangborn, the formerly paralyzed guy who healed himself of irreparable nerve damage by becoming a disciple of Tilda, and he’s at work in a very working-class workshop environment, machine tooling. And Mordo enters, confronts him, and takes back the magic that cured him. A now re-paralyzed Pangborn says “why are you doing this?” And Mordo says, with pained and invested righteousness, “After long last I finally discovered what is wrong with this world. Too many sorcerers.” The implication is that he cannot abide the fact that sorcerers use their power to violate natural law, and that this pains him. In that way he’s set up to be Strange’s future nemesis.
November 7, 2016 at 12:56 pm in reply to: something's wrong…and it really gets down to one major thing #57144znModeratorFor five years the Rams have not had anything resembling an NFL offense. And that is deliberate strategy on Fisher’s part. That’s the problem. It’s all on him, it’s in his DNA.
Sadly, for Rams fans, he’s ridden that ship into the iceberg.
I can’t agree with that OR. FWIW.
This year they couldn’t get the running game up, and that is what killed everything else. Nothing deliberate about that.
2013-2015 you have damaged then inexperienced OLs plus a list of back-up qbs. That wasn’t deliberate. Foles melting down wasn’t deliberate. Bradford getting hurt wasn’t deliberate. Long lists of OL injuries was not deliberate.
November 7, 2016 at 12:49 pm in reply to: Full video, not cherry-picked, of Obama and Jane the Virgin star. #57143znModeratorThree books for starters. All short stories
Larson (ed), Under African Skies: Modern African Stories. Read at least Mphahlele, Head, and Magona (all three are south african)
Achebe, Girls at War, if you haven’t read it. It’s uneven but read it all.
Achebe & Innes (eds), African Short Stories. Read at least Ogot and Head.Also find:
Mukherjee, “The Management of Grief”
Lahiri, “Interpreter of Maladies”
Mueenuddin, “Nawabdin Electrician” (which is a favorite of mine)znModeratormy report on the game isn’t so great i know. i’m not the greatest writer to begin with. couple that with a lack of knowledge about football, and reports would be basically useless.
Well on this one I will drop the informal poll bit and just flat tell you you are wrong.
I like your game reports, I think you have a good and distinctive writing style and I always enjoy your posts, and I appreciate your report and glad it contributed to our unique content here.
I just got into the “should Goff start” debate thing.
But that’s not a reflection on your report.
Heck I would trade up for your game reports. I like them. They have a very distinctive voice and flavor. So, thanks.
znModeratorWell, the flame has just officially been turned up, in’nit?
People all around is sharpening their pitchforks, and wrapping branches with rags and pitch.
And fattening turkeys.
Assuming what you’re describing is thanksgiving.
.
znModeratorWhat I DON’T buy though is the idea that if he DOESN’T start as a rookie he’s a failure as a pick. I don’t believe that.
i’m not arguing that. i’m not saying he’s necessarily a bust. i just question the move up mainly. you’re already gambling. but this is just a shot in the dark if he’s that raw.
and again. i don’t think he’s that raw. i think fisher was/is hoping he can turn this around.
no. they’re not turning this around. the season is lost.
Most struggle. Only a small percentage haven’t. A team that starts a high-picked rookie qb is doing it, far more often than not, because they are rebuilding, have no choice, and are resigned to living with the losses. They were picking a qb high in the first place not because they traded up, but because they were bad and had to rebuild.
yeah. we might argue on the definition of rebuild. but this season is lost. starting keenum does nothing because they are not going to win without a running game.
Well a lot of people do question that.
And for the record I am approaching this discussion not as a herd-board “there can and will be a winner if enough blood gets spilled” style death-match.
I am approaching it as a huddle-board style “informal poll”…it being understood that there will be different takes and we value the conversation more than scoring posting “wins or losses.”
In that spirit, I understand that view–why spend so much? and don’t share it.
My informal poll 2 cents is that it is always worth it to spend that much in a draft to get what you think is the best 10-15 year franchise qb available. From this different perspective, whether or not he starts sooner or later is irrelevant…it’s whether or not he is a franchise 10-15 year qb (which doesn’t mean elite necessarily…for example, Rivers and Eli and Flacco meet that definition but they are not elite. You can win with them and you keep them as starters, and then when your team has enough around him, including a defense, you can do more than just win in the regular season.)
I think Goff WILL BE that so I am fine with the trade.
On the “season is a loss so why not start Goff” argument? I have nothing against that. I would be fine with that. But then I am also fine with the opposite too. That just means I will not argue he MUST start but then am perfectly fine with it if he does. I really do see it as 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. That’s my informal poll 2 cents on that.
….
znModeratorZN,
IMO, the Rams fall into the category of rebuilding, and being bad. From where I sit, the trade was really, really dumb because they didn’t have the talent base to put all eggs in that one basket. A major trade up, mortgaging the team’s future, makes sense when a team is a piece or two away. That’s not the Rams. They still desperately need to build the team, and the best way to do that, especially with a salary cap, is through the draft. Good drafting gets you a window of time with relatively good contracts for three to five year periods. FA, as you know, tends to require huge contracts if you’re looking for talent. Backups is a different story. But if a team wants to upgrade its talent through FA, it almost always has to pay big time for it.
So I’m a big fan of doing that through the draft. With few exceptions, I’m always going to be against trading away multiple picks for one guy, but love when the Rams can pull off the opposite.
To make a long story shorter, I think it’s time to play Goff and get him the experience he needs. They shouldn’t waste his rookie season, playing a QB who is gutsy but too limited. This season is basically over for the Rams. It doesn’t have to be over for Goff.
Well I don’t agree with the idea that they are rebuilding. Or that they meet that definition. In fact I don’t think it adds up to say that. They are as often as not in games, for example, because they have a developed and experienced defense with a number of key starters who are in their 6th to 3rd years (Johnson, McDonald, Barron, Ogletree, Quinn, Donald, Brockers, Hayes). That is simply not a rebuilding team. That’s an “in their peak-years” defense.
And again–I am neither for nor against starting Goff. Anyone who approaches this discussion with me by trying to argue they SHOULD start Goff is just misreading me. To me it’s 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. So I never argue against it, and I don’t argue for it. For a couple of reasons. First, there is absolutely no evidence of any kind that one of the 2 approaches works better–sitting a rookie qb, starting a rookie qb. Both approaches can work and do work. Often in discussions like this someone personally FAVORS one approach, but since they both can work and have worked, there is really no real-world evidence that one approach is better. Second, I never believe that a qb’s longterm value is measured by when he starts. Third, starting a rookie v. starting a back-up on a team with no running game is (again, I keep using this) 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. The smart veteran can do things the rookie can’t, and Goff can do things Keenum can’t.
If they start Goff I am fine with it. If they don’t start Goff I am fine with it. I hear all the arguments both for starting him and for not starting him, and there’s good stuff in each argument.
What I DON’T buy though is the idea that if he DOESN’T start as a rookie he’s a failure as a pick. I don’t believe that.
In terms of “getting him the experience he needs,” that of course is a valid argument, but then so is the opposite.
There’s 2 approaches and they both can work and have worked.
One is, throw him in to get it all at once—PART ONE: learning pro offense, learning defenses, film study, the entire “unlearn being a rookie” mental and training part of it, AND PART 2: taking live reps and learning from mistakes.
The other is, make that 2 stages. Part one first, and then he makes fewer mistakes when it’s time for part 2.
Both can work and have worked.
So if they start him I am fine, if they don’t I am fine. To ME, and please hear this the way I mean it (which is benign), when people argue for one approach or the other, I just see their own personal commitment or investment in THAT approach. They favor it.
I never see that it’s “true” that one approach is better. There is way too much NFL history showing that both can and do work, just for different reasons.
…November 7, 2016 at 10:25 am in reply to: Full video, not cherry-picked, of Obama and Jane the Virgin star. #57126znModeratorRecently bought Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth (with an intro by Sartre), which is often listed along with James’ work as seminal, leftist, must-read books.
Which raises the entire list of post-colonial theory and scholarship, which basically is an entire library section in its own right.
I find that when reading into post-colonial theory and scholarship and history, it is always a good bet to read the fiction too. They reinforce one another. So being aware of post-colonial fiction is a huge contribution to becoming invested in post-colonial theory and history.
.
November 7, 2016 at 10:19 am in reply to: Full video, not cherry-picked, of Obama and Jane the Virgin star. #57123znModeratorAs a rule over the years I have found that if a right-wing media theme or issue sounds like it makes no sense, chances are it doesn’t. When you need actual info, it is never hard to refute. You don’t have to refute every single one every single time. Just know that your experience has taught you that every single time you HAD to refute or or wanted to refute it, it’s never hard and doesn’t take long.
Like the idea that there’s voter fraud in the USA that has to be guarded against.
It never takes very long to demonstrate that in fact not only is there no such issue, but actually, it’s a made up issue so that republicans can find ways to exclude constituencies which tend to vote democratic. That’s all it ever is.
Demonstrating that means a short search and they very quickly and easily you choose one or two of the best sources from the first couple of search pages, and you’re done.
Meanwhile we know full well that there are some who will never be convinced because they are so partisan that they just buy the (always invariably chanted in unison) routine you;re refuting. They won’t listen to the refutation. We know that.
So I just trust that if the rightie themes need to be confronted, it doesn’t take much real effort to do it. It has always been that way before and will always be that way.
Other than that, I pay no attention to them. When they show up in my consciousness it’s because I am in a discussion (like those here) that bring them up. Usually I don’t even invest anything, but when I do, I have always found it takes minutes to expose the disinformation for what it is.
…
znModeratoryou’re missing the point, zn. if he wasn’t that ready. and you know. i accept that he may not have been. you don’t pick him number one overall.
Sure you do. If you think he is the better 10-15 year qb.
The only metric here that DOESN’T count is the “how did he do in year 1” metric.
How he does as a rookie, starting or not starting, has nothing to do with his longterm value and his value as a pick.
And of course remember, most high-picked qbs start as rookies because the team had no choice.
Most struggle. Only a small percentage haven’t. A team that starts a high-picked rookie qb is doing it, far more often than not, because they are rebuilding, have no choice, and are resigned to living with the losses. They were picking a qb high in the first place not because they traded up, but because they were bad and had to rebuild.
November 7, 2016 at 9:57 am in reply to: something's wrong…and it really gets down to one major thing #57115znModeratorthis running game has been a problem since before boras was promoted to offensive coordinator. gurley had 4-5 tremendous games and then fell off a cliff.
People say that sometimes but it;s not accurate.
Look at the gamelogs for individual games. It’s not true he fell off a cliff last year.
Meanwhile, yes, some things suggest that Boras is struggling as a rookie coordinator.
…
znModeratorbradford, mariota, luck, wentz, winston.
Thanks for the report. Glad you got to see them, and sorry it was THAT game you saw. Your post is a good one and I enjoyed it.
But I have to disagree on the “must start rookie qbs” thing. To me, you jump to a lot of conclusions on that issue that don’t hold up.
First off, I submit when you start is no indication at all of your value as a qb. There really is no “how early did he start” metric.
Second off, most 1st round qbs start early because their teams are rebuilding and so they can afford to just live with the losses. AND the majority (a BIG majority) of rookie qbs play on teams that do not win with them as rookies. For example last year the Titans went 3-13 starting Mariota.
And finally, Luck, Wentz, and Winston anyway were all coached up in college pro-style offenses. In fact Luck was considered one of the most pro-ready qbs, ever. It makes a difference.
Either way I say the issue isn’t qb. Keenum was not supposed to be starting with a team that could not run the ball. On top of it, as it happens, you just saw the worst 3 quarters of Keenum since the SF game. The games since have all been close, and win or lose they were close in the first place because the Rams had a passing game (and nothing else on offense) plus, sometimes, a defense. The last 2 years, the Rams are 5-1 when CK has a qb rating of 80 or more, and 1-5 when he has a qb rating of less than 80. But he was never supposed to be all there was to the Rams offense. The bigger issue is the running game.
Like a lot of people who see games live, you went to one of the worst ones to get a realistic picture. You saw them struggle live, that gets burned into the brain, and out of that are drawing conclusions that do not hold up for the bigger picture which includes all games played. For example you say this: “case can’t do much more than what he’s doing which isn’t much.” Well actually, yes, he can do more and HAS. You just saw, as I said, his worst 3 quarters since the SF game. He has done a lot more than that. He was the difference on offense in their wins, and in the close games they lost before this one, he was the only reason on offense they even were close. If you had seen the Tampa or Detroit games live, your idea of what he can do, even without a running game, would be far different, I bet.
To clarify, I am genuinely not on a start Goff/don’t start Goff bandwagon either way. I am fine with it if they start him and fine with it if they don’t. But I don’t believe for a minute that WHEN he starts is any indication at all of his value as a pick. He got picked to play for 10-15 years. Not to be yet another qb who struggles as a rookie starter—and yes, the majority do. Again, BIG majority.
And he’s not ready to play, if in fact he’s not ready to play, because the leap from his college offense to his pro offense is HUGE. So it’s not failure, it’s just the path of development. If when he started really meant something, then, okay; but if he is a good pick it’s going to be because he plays for 10-15 years, as planned, and not because he was (like the vast majority of rookie qbs) struggling as a rookie starter.
That’s my 20 cents anyway.
…
November 6, 2016 at 11:00 pm in reply to: at long last, finally, there are now articles on when Goff should start #57077znModerator…
znModeratorChiwetel Ejiofor’s Mordo seemed to have very little to do. He felt like a character there just to help the plot explain things but not particularly important.
In the comics, Mordo is one of Strange’s greatest adversaries. He is to Strange as Dr. Ock is to Spiderman. What the film was doing was setting that up. He at first recognizes Strange’s potential, and then breaks with him in the end. If you saw the final credits scene, we see Mordo emerge as the future villain. It’s a thing with the Dr. Strange films, apparently, that the villains are always dedicated to what sounds like a good, higher cause. They are righteous. That, it seems, is what Mordo will be.
.
znModeratorWe know that voter fraud in the USA is so insignificant as to be completely inconsequential. The numbers are ridiculously low. We also know that courts keep overturning doctored up ways to disenfranchise voters, and that the fake concern over “voter fraud” is just an excuse to push disenfranchisement.
That;s all pretty clearly established.
I mean expect among rightie site blogiorialists. But then they’re just deeply partisan. The only people who buy their schtick are just as partisan.
Which is fine. Yes I see you as a political partisan, in politics discussions. I know full well there’s more to you than that. Just as there’s more to me than partisan bashing.
I had a friend in Indiana who voted twice. Once in the county he lived in 2 years previously and once where he currently lived. And he really didn’t know it was illegal.
Okay. But that’s anecdotal. There are studies of voter fraud. It is what I said it is statistically–insignificant.
BUT. Using voter fraud as an cover to disenfranchise voters is real. It’s going on as we speak. There’s the court cases, and even some open admissions about it.
=========
=========As the GOP Suppresses Votes, Heritage President Admits It’s Helping Republicans
DeMint is not the first conservative to admit voter ID laws hurt Democrats, Republicans claim they will “make the difference” against Clinton.
Apr 29th, 2016
Jim DeMint, the former South Carolina senator, acknowledged that the rash of Republican voter ID laws rampant in red states definitely helps elect “more conservative candidates.” DeMint then asserted, strongly by the way, that the only reason Democrats oppose harsh voter suppression and ID laws is because they help Republicans. DeMint is as deceitful as he is a liar as he is opposed to the democratic process. Research, studies, and empirical data reveal there is virtually no voter fraud going on anywhere; a fact DeMint knows is indisputable. More on that later.
The reason Democrats or anyone on the Left opposes “stringent voter ID requirements” is because they are created specifically to target the poor, students, the elderly, and people of color to prohibit them from exercising a basic American right to vote. If those groups believe Democrats are working for their best interest and not solely for the religious and the rich, of course they are going to vote for Democrats; they are disenfranchised, not stupid like conservative voters.
DeMint continued,
“The left fights voter ID or any kind of picture ID to know that it is actually a registered voter who’s voting. And so it’s something we’re working on all over the country, because in the states where they do have voter ID laws you’ve seen, actually, elections begin to change towards more conservative candidates.”
The Heritage president is implying the only honest voters in America are conservatives and perpetuated the bovine excrement argument that rampant voter fraud on the left is the only reason a Democrat can win an election. In fact, when he was queried about Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe’s recent executive order restoring voting rights to over 200,000 Virginia residents, DeMint said exactly what one expects from Republicans entrenched in the voter suppression movement. “Governor McAuliffe is inviting more voter fraud” to help Democrats. DeMint may no longer be an officially active Republican politician, but the teabagger gave a typically Republican line about allowing Americans to vote; he said,
“It’s awfully suspicious coming into a big election in a state where it’s actually pretty close. I mean, states can decide who votes, but the governor seems over the top to me. I haven’t seen a complete analysis here, but the left is trying to draw votes from illegals, from voter fraud, a lot of different things, so this kind of fits right in to trying to find another group that they can basically count on to vote their way.”
It is awfully nice for DeMint to approve of states deciding who gets to vote, but he made a hypocritically atrocious claim about a Democratic state being “awfully suspicious” in restoring voting rights. This is particularly true when he just said Republicans enact harsh voter ID and suppression laws in order to disenfranchise Americans inclined to vote for Democrats and to help conservatives and Republicans win elections; a fact that no small number of Republicans have openly admitted to little outrage across Republican states.
DeMint is not the first conservative to admit voter ID laws benefit Republican candidates. A Wisconsin Republican, Glenn Grothman recently boasted that enacting harsh “photo ID laws is going to make the difference” in defeating Hillary Clinton in the 2016 general election.
In another study published a couple of months ago by researchers at the University of California-San Diego, the results confirmed what anyone with a functioning brain already knows; Republicans’ harsh voter ID laws adversely affect the turnout of minorities and Democrats.
Now, Republicans began claiming, after first losing control of Congress in 2006 and again when Barack Obama won in 2008 that out-of-control voter fraud incited their crusade to abolish the Voting Rights Act and implement the most severe vote suppression tactics since the Jim Crow era. It is noteworthy that several Republicans across the country have admitted, openly, that the voter ID and suppression tactics are to restrict tens-of-millions of Americans right to vote to help elect Republicans. And yet conservatives like DeMint continue claiming their anti-democracy efforts are simply to prevent voter fraud; something that hardly exists.
Less than two years ago a comprehensive investigation of over a billion votes cast since 2000 in every primary, general, special, recall and municipal election in the entire nation revealed that there were only 31 documented cases of voter fraud over the course of thirteen years and who knows how many state, federal, and regional elections. If the number thirty-one seems awfully small for over a billion votes cast, look at it as a percentage of over a billion votes; a stunningly small 0.000000031% over the past thirteen years. And, according to the researchers compiling those figures, it is more likely than not “that any fraud was more as a result of errors than deliberate cheating.”
Republicans are well aware they can hardly win if there are fair elections that allow all Americans to vote or they would not enact vote suppression and absurd voter ID laws. The sad fact is that their efforts have been successful with the valuable assistance of the Koch acolytes on the Supreme Court, and their crusade is ramping up across the nation, just as DeMint promised.
znModeratorGreg Beacham @gregbeacham 38m38 minutes ago
The Rams’ defense sacked Cam Newton 5 times and held Carolina to 244 yards and 1 touchdown. That ought to be enough to win, right?Yeah this defense ought to have shown up in the Detroit game, and the Detroit game offense should have shown up in this game.
…
znModerator…who’s got the torches?…i had some matches but i think i lost’em somewhere…..I forget where the castle is, too…are we burning it or just hurling insults?
w
vThe plan is to send it harassing tweets.
.
znModeratorRunning game.
They ran the ball okay, not great, just okay, for 4 years.
2012 19th (still better than 2016)
2013 19th (still better than 2016)
2014 20th (still better than 2016)
2015 7thand then 2016 … 29th
And it’s probably not just one thing.
znModeratorChat room back up
-
AuthorPosts
