Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ZooeyModeratorI dont buy the “they had all this time” thing. So did every team that ever moved, and of them all, only one of them won. It just causes problems, and that includes having a first time OC install essentially a new offense for the first time during a move. In fact it’s LESS time than all those other teams had because the Rams are the first team to ever move since they cut back the amount of time teams can practice.
The problems they had this year remind me of 2011, and the way the Rams offense was out of sync then. Well that was the year they put in the McDaniels offense without an off-season. I saw the same level of out-of-syncness this year. It looks very similar to me.
I am a diehard contextista and that stuff is real. When I see it dismissed, I always only think, yeah well why are you dismissing something real.
And if the OLs guys they drafted aren’t very good why were they better as a unit by the end of 2015 after they settled after a bunch of injuries.
And Goff could improve from where he was before because he was a non-starting rookie qb with one on one qb coaching, with time to work on his game…something starters do not have since they have to work on implementing gameplans.
Okay, well, it is one thing to say that teams had bad years after they moved. How did those records compare with the previous year, though?
Who has moved, and what kind of team were they the year before they moved? Can you show that teams that moved mostly did worse the year they moved, or were they just bad?
The Cardinals moved. They were pretty much a lousy team anyway.
The Raiders and Rams were lousy when they left LA.
The Houston Oilers were bad when they moved.
The Colts were bad when they moved to Indianapolis.I really don’t know what we are talking about with that claim.
But the Rams showed all the signs of being a team on the rise last year. And the defense hasn’t been bad this year. Erratic, maybe. A few bad games. But overall, they seem to have been pretty good. Fewer sacks, fewer turnovers, but in the same ballpark.
The offense, though….It’s like the offense was more adversely affected by moving than the defense. And if that is the case, then Moving isn’t the main reason.
I think it is more likely that Boras’ system is the culprit, and I haven’t heard anybody claim Boras is some kind of offensive wizard with arcane schemes that take time.
To me…all signs point to Boras. Everything does.
And I admit I have Zero positive evidence to blame Boras. But it’s like…eliminate every other possibility and what remains must be true. I have been wanting to blame Boras for several weeks, and I just can’t work my way out of doing that, no matter how hard I try to find other explanations.
December 5, 2016 at 6:12 pm in reply to: Army Corps Denies Easement and Blocks the Dakota Access Pipeline #60365ZooeyModeratorSorry he isn’t mired in poverty for you.
Well that was a gigantic red herring.
I could give a crap about his money.
I DO care, in terms of the subject of this thread, about a president making a fundamentally important policy decision that is clouded by his own direct financial conflict of interest.
Fundamentally important policy decision my ass. Where were you democrats giving a shit about Buffet dangerously shipping oil by the train car directly through towns and at a far higher cost? Was there an EIS or even an EA for that given existing rail lines? Would like to see the safety implications if any that were identified.
Yeah thats right,
Silence.
Trump will look at the merit of the COE decision. Until a decision is made its nothing but conjecture.
So you respond to the accusation of using a red herring with another red herring.
Okay.
It really does seem to be your signature rhetorical move.
ZooeyModeratorWell the Rams are going to have to make some serious decisions. If the move is the cause of the problem–then I guess you keep the same guys next year and hope for the best. If the players are the problem–which ones? Who do you replace? And how? What is the quickest fix? If coaching is the problem then someone has to go.
The best situation is if the move was the problem. That won’t be a problem next year.
Of course if it’s some combination–well, it gets more complicated.
Move or not–they have not been able to fix it through twelve games. How long does a move hangover last? I’m not sold on the move explanation(see–I used an E word but not the other E word). At this point in the season the running game should be better–even if there were early stutters. I’d accept that more in the early schedule. Not so much now.
So for me, that leaves players or coaches.
I believe there will be changes. But the Rams have very few options considering the lack of draft choices. I’m not sure how much of an upgrade they will make. Coaching changes would not surprise me. I can see someone falling on the sword.
In any case–they have to address it.
Yeah, you just said that a lot better than I did. That is just it. They’ve had OTAs, Training Camp, preseason games, 12 games, and a bye week.
If Jared Goff can make the strides HE made while getting no playing time, those players on the OL should be better with 3/4 of the season gone. You’re right. If the move played a role, we should have seen improvement as the season progressed, but the running game just totally sucks.
Players or coaches.
The thing is that Boudreau is a very good coach. We’ve seen him work magic with a shattered Rams line, and elsewhere in the league. So what the hell? Now I have said several times I question the game schemes/playcalling (and I am not one to question playcalling usually – like I never jumped on the playcalling issue with previous OCs).
So. Maybe the guys they drafted just aren’t very good.
I wanna see the individual PFF rankings for these guys, or read some posts by some of the line play guys. RFL would be useful here, perhaps, if he is watching the Rams this year.
ZooeyModeratorOn the “cohesion” question, I just have to say that that was a bigger issue last year. A bunch of rookies etc. They played together last year. They had another full training camp, OTAs, and we are now 12 games in. I know there were distractions. But I just think it is a stretch to blame OL problems on the move. So ZN and I are just going to have to accept that we are lifelong enemies there.
December 5, 2016 at 2:27 pm in reply to: As Breitbart wages "war" on Kellogg’s, advertisers flee #60348ZooeyModeratorActually, and unfortunately, Hekker is their best weapon. How about that 76 yard punt? That was more impressive in person than it would be on TV.
I had the same response to the 78-yarder against the Bills. You just wouldn’t get the sense of that on TV. On TV, a long punt is “Oh, cool.” In the stadium, it was just, “Holy ####!”
The Rams have to get it together and win a ring for Hekker’s sake.
ZooeyModeratorAnd I am something that starts with a P. Was it a Pragmaticite? I’m not sure that’s right.
Anyway, one thing I’m sure of, Fisher will get an extension for two years because that is what makes sense from ownership’s point of view.
Now, when exactly that deal gets done, and when it is announced, I don’t know, but…
What?
Oh, right.
ZooeyModeratorIt is logically inconsistent to say that all Stan cares about is making money, and he doesn’t care about winning. There is a direct correlation between the two. Yes, Stan has constructed his business so that he is going to make money even if the Rams lose – which in every quarter except Fandom is considered smart – but he will make a lot more if he wins.
He will sell more tickets, and sell them at higher prices. He will sell more merchandise, and the value of the franchise will go up.
Of course Stan wants to win.
And he has more confidence than the fans do that Fisher can win. And all that means is that Rams fans and Stan disagree.
As for Bonsignore, count this among the many columns of his I won’t bother to read. He is just another homer fan with a hard hat with two beers and a straw. I already know what he is going to say most of the time. If Fisher wins, Bonsignore will trot out the column claiming that people “got” to him, and made him make the necessary adjustments.
Whatever. I am sick and tired of losing, too. But I am in no way convinced that Fisher is the reason they are losing, let alone of the likelihood of his imaginary replacement being more successful. Until there are reports that he has lost the team, like we had with Linehan, I am inclined to just wait and see.
I am certainly interested in reading conversations about Norv Turner coming in, though.
ZooeyModeratorAre you wearing a Dickerson jersey? Cuz I saw that guy.
ZooeyModeratorif they tank the rest of the way and fans revolt?
They won’t care.
They will assume they can rally in 2017 and that winning puts an end to the “revolt.”
Exactly. One playoff berth in the next two years, and all the pissing and moaning among fans evaporates and disappears.
ZooeyModeratorI watched all of it. I enjoyed it a lot.
I thought he was very good on explaining the Trumpets. I previously agreed with him on Trump’s appeal here, but was very interested in his knowledge of how the same thing is happening throughout Europe, and how it is manifesting in right wing populism when there is no left wing alternative. That was interesting…and worrying. I thought he was also good on the entire post WWI sweep of economics. I think he might have added that Europe and America were on different courses, though up until 1980. Well, that’s what I think, anyway. I think post WWII Europe, in particular, clearly headed in a more socially equitable direction than America did. And I think the Reagan/Thatcher alliance was the beginning of Europe being “neo-liberalised” American-style. The destruction of unions was crucial to our current circumstances.
I was curious about his comment that after WWII, the west pushed for Full Employment because, of course, that was happening in the Eastern bloc, and so to cut off any interest in a shift to the left at that turning point in history, capital kind of took care of the working and middle classes so they wouldn’t “get any ideas.”
I am also interested in this idea of “mincome.” I have heard that it has been implemented somewhere in Europe – I don’t remember where. Such a concept is anathema to Americans, of course, who have been trained to think their virtue is measured by how much of their life they spend working. I can’t see the idea gaining traction here, but I would love to know more about that.
And…yeah…on the short video WV posted. Isn’t that just the perfect stat to unveil to all those people who think raising the minimum wage will cost business too much?
December 4, 2016 at 11:40 am in reply to: Clinton’s “Corrupt Establishment” Is Now Advising Donald Trump #60190ZooeyModeratorLets see how he governs.
This IS Trump governing, bnw.
December 4, 2016 at 11:38 am in reply to: Clinton’s “Corrupt Establishment” Is Now Advising Donald Trump #60187ZooeyModeratorSurprise, surprise.
Who could have seen THAT coming?
Oh…I know. Everybody.
This guy has set a new record for breaking campaign promises. Before he has even taken the oath of office.
Here is one more thing to expect from a Trump presidency: a new record for vacation days taken by a president, though Bush’s record will be tough to beat. (And nary a peep about his vacation time by the right wing hacks that complain about Obama golfing all the time).
Obama, btw, took less than half the vacation days that Bush did.
ZooeyModeratorI used to post those all the time, and then I more or less lost track of him on the net. Thanks for those. He just…has a way, doesn’t he?
ZooeyModeratorSanders and Clinton are farther apart in their core beliefs than Clinton and Trump are.
LOL.
That is true.
Either one will/would continue neo-liberal, trickle down economics. Either one would/will cut taxes for the 1% and push more wealth upward away from the bottom 99%.
They both would appoint corporate friendly justices. They both will blow up other countries for the duration of their presidency. The only differences are the Hillary would appoint socially tolerant justices, and there might be some differences in which (additional) countries get blown up. Those are important differences, but you’re right. Sanders differed on those important core issues of economic equality, and sane foreign policy.
Sigh.
He woulda beat Trump.
ZooeyModeratorThat’s exactly what I expected to happen.
I will guess that it also contains a buy out clause for Kroenke.
December 2, 2016 at 9:05 pm in reply to: Scouting QB Jared Goff After 2 Games; LA Rams vs NE Patriots #60061ZooeyModeratorThe Patriots $%#*&$* suck.
And I hate them.
I hate them, and I hate Bellisatan, and I hate Mr. Victoria Secret Guy.
That is all that matters here, and my hatred will be the difference in the game.
Rams 59 Patriots 3.
ZooeyModeratorOK, fine. But what type of science ignores historic data going back 65 million years that contradicts the theory of man made global warming? Its like a physician ignoring a patients health history when diagnosing and treating.
What kind of scientific argument has to go back 65 million years to find a cooling pattern when humans have been emitting CO2 only for the past couple of hundred years, and that’s the cause scientists are concerned about?
The cooling has been consistent for 65 million years. In case you don’t know that does predate mankind by about 64 million years.
Right. Which is why the first 64.9998 million years of your data does not prove what you think it proves. That’s what I’m saying.
The deal is that the global temperatures have been rising strikingly very recently, corresponding with co2 emissions. That is the whole point. The fact that the earth was cooling consistently prior to the large increase of co2 due to industrialization is a strong part of the evidence that man-made global warming is a thing. The earth WAS cooling for 64.9998 million years. It isn’t cooling now. It is getting warmer. Dramatically. Quickly. So don’t tell me that because it was cooling over a period of 65 million years, that means it is still cooling now. It isn’t.
ZooeyModeratorOK, fine. But what type of science ignores historic data going back 65 million years that contradicts the theory of man made global warming? Its like a physician ignoring a patients health history when diagnosing and treating.
What kind of scientific argument has to go back 65 million years to find a cooling pattern when humans have been emitting CO2 only for the past couple of hundred years, and that’s the cause scientists are concerned about?
December 2, 2016 at 5:26 pm in reply to: How many promises will he break before inauguration? #60029ZooeyModeratorWhere they divert funds from the NSF to the Ark Encounter theme park.
Don’t be so hasty to judge. If they continue to frack up the planet, we are gonna need that ark.
ZooeyModeratorIDK…to me Oakland is Raider land..if only they could get a stadium deal done because really they have a much worse situation than the Chargers stadium wise.
Cards back to STL…agree
LA remains Rams…agree
Chargers stay in SD…agreeAZ and Vegas get expansion.
Oh believe me, wv knows that, sanbagger.
As a long time 49’ers fan, wv is well aware of Oakland’s love of the Raiders.
And with his beloved team 1-10 and now 45 miles away in Santa Clara and the Raiders a Super Bowl contender, he senses the Frisco area switching their allegiance to the Silver and Black (note that I said ‘Frisco’. wv, like most San Franciscans, hates that. I get my digs in where I can).
That’s why he wants the Raiders to move. He knows putting an expansion team in Oakland will take a long time to approve. It will take longer still to field a winner. In the meantime local support will undoubtedly swing back to the 9’ers. Unlike the Raiders, an expansion team won’t be a threat to the 9’ers’ sovereignty in the bay area.
So, believe me, he cares little about fair play or justice for other cities that lost their team. He cares only about one thing, the 9’ers maintaining their hold over the greater San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose/Santa Clara metroplex.
December 2, 2016 at 10:10 am in reply to: How many promises will he break before inauguration? #59990ZooeyModeratorI don’t understand your statement about SCOTUS and the EPA since Trump has promised significant change for the better with his SC appointees and a severe roll back of anti coal and other onerous EPA regs. Both will happen. GUARANTEED.
He said things about them.
They weren’t central. They were not emphasized like the wall, hillary, and the ACA.
ZooeyModeratorMy fear is the Rams will become the Clippers to the Chargers’ Lakers.
$tanK deserves it.
Okay. But we don’t.
December 2, 2016 at 12:02 am in reply to: How many promises will he break before inauguration? #59967ZooeyModeratorBernie: Carrier just showed corps how to beat Trump
Nice job, Nittany.
Did you find that article all by yourself?
Or did you just get it from the original post in this thread?
December 1, 2016 at 11:59 pm in reply to: How many promises will he break before inauguration? #59966ZooeyModerator————-
NExt election might be really interesting. If an ‘actual’ progressive runs against the Billionaire with a four year record — should be interesting.One wonders, btw, who the MSM would support in a race between an incumbent Billionaire-Republican and a Bernie-type-Progressive ?
Trump wont be able to run as an ‘outsider’ next time.
w
vI am also curious to see if Trump will get a challenge in the primary, like Carter did. That will depend on his popularity in three years, I suppose.
ZooeyModeratorYou moved the LA thread. I see.
December 1, 2016 at 8:16 pm in reply to: Scouting QB Jared Goff After 2 Games; LA Rams vs NE Patriots #59956ZooeyModeratorI am seeing a completely different guy from preseason. Well, that’s not exactly right. We saw the flashes in preseason, but he just looked totally green.
This guy is good. I mean…right now…he IS better than Keenum. No question. You have to be excited by having Goff at QB going forward, for sure. He is going to be better than Bradford. That over the shoulder shot to Austin was a throw Bradford could not make the first couple of seasons. Bradford had trouble with fades and over the shoulder stuff. He was always good on a line, but not as good with touch. I didn’t watch the Saints game, and only part of the Dolphins game, but Goff seems more nimble to me, and has better accuracy, and zip. I am all aboard the Goff train now.
December 1, 2016 at 7:32 pm in reply to: How many promises will he break before inauguration? #59955ZooeyModeratorHe’s not building the wall let alone have Mexico pay for it, he’s not repealing Obamacare, he’s not going to convict Hillary…aren’t those three promises the reason why about 75% of his supporters voted for him?
http://www.newsweek.com/keeping-score-donald-trump-campaign-promises-526391
Well, he isn’t keeping his promises because he failed to keep the promise that all the others depend upon: draining the swamp. You don’t bring in Insiders to revolutionize the status quo.
Since he brought in insiders, there is no way he is going to do much of anything outside the box except some stuff for showbiz. The areas where he is capable of changing things (i.e.causing significant damage) are areas where he didn’t make any real promises in the first place: SCOUTUS, EPA, etc. But he isn’t going to do the big three.
ZooeyModeratorI’m not so sure.
I think one might be able to flap him.
November 30, 2016 at 9:11 pm in reply to: informal poll: should the Patz even bother to show up? #59901ZooeyModeratorThe Rams win.
That’s just what they do. They lose to 5 mediocre teams, then rise up and beat the best teams.
That is kinda their MO…but the Pats MO is to not allow the lesser teams to rise up against them.
I think Goff has a decent game against a suspect Pats D but it won’t be enough.
Pats – 27
Rams – 19Okay, well, if you hate the Rams so much, why don’t you just move to Seattle?
-
AuthorPosts
