zn wrote:

Zooey wrote:

That socialist didn’t sound all that angry.

Not a socialist. A sparticist. There’s a difference. And she sounded like a typical spariticist to me. Not so much angry as dogmatically self-righteous (raised emphatic “j’accuse” tones) in the pissy way sparticists do that, while also in the way sparticists do things, getting most of the facts just completely wrong. It’s actually speech-making. They prepare these things and practice. Remember the poster 9erhater? They’re like that. In every group discussion where I’ve ever encountered them, going back decades.

I was merely responding to the Title of the youtube which is “Noam Chomsky Brilliant Speech vs Angry Socialists.” The title reveals a bias itself, is all I was saying. The “socialist” wasn’t angry, and Chomsky’s response was pedestrian (albeit accurate).

And you are right about the self-righteousness, and the tone.

That socialist didn’t sound all that angry. Pointed, but fairly calm.

That first one, on Bakunin, was interesting in light of Donald Trump. It’s like the 90% of “meddlesome” outsiders whose role it is to show up at the polls every few years to decide which intellectual they want to rule them threw a spanner in the works.

And made the situation even worse by doing so. Sigh.

It’s because he’s a pretty good football player.

I hope that Les Snead notices that, too.

Yeah, I understand that Geno Smith has been terrible, and benching Eli for Geno looks bad, and would seem to make no sense going forward.

But, I dunno. Because for all I know, Smith is actually capable of doing certain things, and not capable of doing other things. And for all I know, the things McAdoo wants him to do are in his wheelhouse. Or something. I mean…I don’t know.

But if that isn’t the case, then why doesn’t one of these whiners SAY that? It just the same superficial crap we always get from the national media types. Everyone is all Boo Hoo over Eli Manning, or else @#$()*&(*!@ over Eli Manning, but nobody has anything Football to say about it.

They are good for highlights, and that’s it. Just roll the tape, and STFU.

Well, there ya go.

So…from this point, it’s just a matter of journalistic emphasis, and to portray it with the perception that the Rams are using it more heavily (and possibly dishonorably) is nothing but talking head spin in action, and one that fits easily into the preconceived narrative that Goff is lost as a QB, and McVay is a boy genius.

zn wrote:

Zooey wrote:

Which is bogus because Adam Schefter’s account isn’t AdarnSchefter.

Thanks. I was rushing and didnt look. I deleted my original.

Well, delete mine, and delete yours, and delete this.

Adam Schefter‏@AdarnSchefter
Eli Manning has asked Jerry Reese and the Giants organization for his release, per source.

Which is bogus because Adam Schefter’s account isn’t AdarnSchefter.

Herzog wrote:

Hate the Cardinals, lets kill’em

Most of my ill will is directed at Arians. As long as he is there, I’d like the Rams to pummel the Cards. After he’s gone, I’ll be happy with simple victories. Well…probably I will find someone else to despise.

I love Fitzgerald, though. That guy and Richard Sherman are the only two non-Rams players I like. It’s a pity both are in the division, though, because I have to root for them to fail utterly.

PA Ram wrote:

. I actually think this would make a great little film–two old guys on opposite sides battling it out with insults and escalating pranks, Maybe a dark comedy. Starring Michael Caine and Christopher Plummer.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1521197/?ref_=nv_sr_1

I heard this movie wasn’t very good. I saw it in the theatre (maybe its stage debut?) at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival several years ago, and thought the play was great.

Obviously a great win. It was very important to get that win, especially after losing to Minnesota last week. It proves that the Rams actually belong in the playoffs, belong in the conversation about the best teams. They erased some doubts even if doubts remain about their chances in the postseason.

But – as convincing a victory as that was – it came too close to being a disaster. They had that game in hand from the opening kickoff, but…what if the Saints had come up with that squib kick? The Saints had no timeouts remaining, but Drew Brees with 1:45 left, and a defense that just matadored the previous drive…. They could have suffered an agonizing defeat.

In this team’s growth, one of the areas that has been clearly in need of improvement has been that the offense does not finish enough drives in the end zone. I mean…they are scoring a lot of points. And one could look at it as a big positive…they are extending enough drives to get into field goal position instead of crapping out earlier and having to punt. But I don’t think they are very highly ranked in their Red Zone opportunities.

I will be watching for that stat to show up. But 4 more FGs this week? They need to push one or two more of those into the end zone.

And while the Rams have started 2017 with a strong year-to-year turnaround, a tough Minnesota team could present them with their toughest challenge yet — pitting the NFL’s top scoring offense against a Vikings’ defense that is allowing just 18.3 points per game.

Okay, well, first of all, the Rams’ defense allows 18 points per game, so I don’t know why the game is framed as if it’s an offensive team against a defensive team. I do think the Vikings are ranked higher overall by other statistics, however, but in any event, I tend to think this storyline is a bit superficial.

So…I’m sitting here with about 10 minutes to kill, so I decided to look at those opponents and run some useless equations. I looked at all of MN’s opponents, and what they score on average, and what they scored on the Vikes. 3 teams scored about on the button for their average, 3 scored significantly less (9 points, 13, and 12 below avg), 1 scored 5 points below average, and 2 scored above average (7 and 3 above).

Then I averaged it all. On average, teams have scored 4 fewer points against the Vikings than their season average. Or to put that the other way, the Vikings have, on average, held their opponents to 4 points fewer than their season average.

I would take 28 or 29 points to win the game for the Rams tomorrow. The Vikes average 24 points a game. I didn’t calculate how many points on average the Rams’ Defense takes away from opponents’ season averages because my 10 minutes is up. And so you will have to live with this incomplete bullshit salad as it stands.

TSRF wrote:

I don’t buy the argument that he only had back-up QB’s in 2016.

Look how good Goff AND Keenum are doing this year…

I was glad when Fisher was hired, I liked the swagger he brought to the D, but over the years, the O just rotted under him.

I wonder what Fisher thinks when he watches Rams games. I wonder what Martz thinks too.

I would love to know what Fisher thinks, too.

If I had to guess, though, I would bet he feels a little bit like Moses. Did all the dirty work in Egypt, building a nation from from the ground up, led them through the wilderness for 40 years, and then God kills him right when the Promised Land is visible on the horizon.

I bet he feels like Kroenke shafted him something terrible. And that he woulda had it this year if he had been retained.

I’m thinking I may have to locate my shoebox filled with mini-helmets that I acquired as a kid, and pile all my Rams helmets on top of a Vikings helmet to see if that helps. It didn’t always work when I was a kid, but this is a new era.

zn wrote:

Zooey wrote:

Belichek, Payton, Carroll, Arians, Shanahan, Gruden, McCarthy, Rivera, Tomlin, Pederson, Zimmer, Pagano.

Dunno.

I think this is a tangent that isn’t helpful, however.

I would say Bellichick and Zimmer. Rams have talent but IMO they don’t have “7-2 in the first year of a new regime with ANY good coach” talent. I think McVay supplied that extra percentage.

…

Well, I don’t konw. I know all those coaches have had success.

The dramatic turnaround is dramatic partly because they played below their ability last season. That wasn’t a 4-12 team on paper. I think the move affected them more than I expected it to, and I don’t think Fisher/Wentz/Boras knew how to work with Goff.

But Snisher acquired a lot of talent. A lot of it. What Fisher never did was hire an innovative OC, or get good WRs. He tried to fix the OL, and some of those guys – Grob especially – just didn’t cut it. He built a pretty good foundation of talent, though, which is why I put money on the Rams for the first time in my life when I saw them get Whitworth and WRS and a guy who knows offense. It was a good ship with a couple of leaks, and no wind in its sails.

I agree that McVay is better, and better substantially. I agree with everything people have said in this thread, basically, and I’m glad now that Fisher is gone. He tolerated sloppiness, and he didn’t adjust during the game. Hell, we have seen more in-game adjustments that matter from McVay/Phillips this season than we saw in 5 seasons combined with Fisher, I’d warrant.

I was never a Fisher fan. I thought he was the right choice at the time, and was hopeful he would produce a winner. I would have given him one more season (this year) to produce, but I’m very, very glad Kroenke didn’t agree with me. Fisher seemed to develop this “I got this” attitude where he just thought he was a very good coach, and he stopped evolving. McVay is out there watching everybody’s film, and stealing plays that work, and applying them in exactly the right situation, and brings his hunger to everything he does. Fisher was coasting. And I think McVay’s success reduces Fisher’s chances of landing another coaching gig.

Anyway. Long Live McVay.

Everyone who thinks the Rams would be 7-2 right now if Fisher was still coach…raise your hand.