joemad wrote:

It all depends on which HC is available because Fisher’s medocracy won’t sell the PSLs in Inglewood.

It won’t need to. Inglewood will sell on the basis of Inglewood, not on who is HC.

You think the most glorious stadium in the world is going to open its doors, and people are going to say, “Wow! Fantastic! I would SO buy tickets there, but…enh…Jeff Fisher is the coach, so I’ll pass.” Seriously, the Cleveland Browns would sell the place out initially.

And I don’t mean to predict or advocate that Fisher will still be coach. SK may decide to add some sizzle to his sizzle, and open a New Glorious Era with a new coach. But that will be sizzle. What I am saying is the HC will have no impact on ticket sales for the inaugural season there. That stadium is an Event all by itself with nothing happening on the field.

nittany ram wrote:

It may be BS. And if it was true Stan certainly wouldn’t confide in Joe Roggin. But he would have confided in somebody. Probably multiple people. And info like this tends to leak.

But yeah, I’m skeptical.

Well, if he confided it in multiple people, he didn’t confide it.

Nobody with 50 years experience in big business is going to make any kind of ironclad declaration like that.

At most, Stan said something, regarding the contract extension, along the lines of, “Let’s wait, and see where we are at the end of November.”

Joe Reporter hears that…and, voila. “Fate sealed.”

I wouldn’t give Fisher a contract longer than a two-year extension if I were owner. Up to the new stadium. I would want my options open right there. And if I was owner, I would wait until the end of November to decide what I want to do. Why lock him up earlier than necessary?

InvaderRam wrote:

i don’t like that bonsignore article. i don’t know how starting keenum doesn’t have the long term picture in my mind. in fact. one could say he did have the long term picture in my mind by giving goff time to acclimate himself to the nfl. it also seems like he’s trying to put all the blame on keenum without giving context to those 4 interceptions.

and while i am in favor of starting goff after the bye (as long as he is ready). after thinking about it i don’t see how it benefits the rams in any way for fisher to declare goff the starter right after the giants loss. except for to take some heat off himself for the next 2 weeks. fisher has long been touted as a players’ coach. i don’t see any selfishness in this at all. maybe i’m reading it wrong.

i think there are a lot of things you can criticize fisher on. i think some of the personnel decisions have been questionable. i’m beginning to wonder his ability to get his players ready for a game. but i don’t think you can call him selfish. or that he’s holding goff back as a way to preserve his job.

I agree. He is imputing motives that he can’t possibly know. And he clearly is just seeing what he wants to see.

Because one could just as easily put forward a case that starting Goff would be self-preservation. If the Rams win with Goff, Fisher is a genius. If they lose with Goff, he’s a rookie QB who came from a system that did not prepare him for the NFL, and he’s only learning, so he needs more time to develop. Therefore it isn’t Fisher’s fault.

Furthermore, Bonsignore accuses Fisher of blaming everyone but himself, but at the same time argues that Fisher should have thrown Keenum under the bus and announced Goff is starting. But Fisher didn’t blame Keenum. And it’s good that he didn’t demote him on the spot because throwing a QB under the bus like that isn’t good for morale in the locker room.

What’s more, he is assuming that the W-L record is what Stan is going to look at when the Fisher contract has to be determined, as if that is the only relevant consideration. And he is assuming the Rams would lose more with Goff than Keenum.

In the end, one could argue either way with Keenum and Goff, and one could argue either way which QB would most likely preserve Fisher’s career, so the interpretation and motives one chooses to accept as “reality” doesn’t reveal anything about the Rams, Goff, or Fisher, but only that person’s opinion of Fisher.

I basically agree with zn on this. Keenum is not capable of more than this. The running game isn’t good. The defense isn’t sacking anybody, or getting turnovers. It’s good, but it isn’t suffocating. It can’t carry the offense. The return game is forgettable. The kicking game is good, but no team makes the playoffs on the strength of their kicker and punter.

Up until now, I had been content to let Goff sit. But this game changed my mind, and that is irrespective of whether Keenum or the WRs were responsible for the INTs. I know one got batted in the air, and the last one appeared to be Quick going to the wrong place. I don’t even remember the other two, and in fact, think I was out of the room when they happened. I have already wiped a lot of the game out of my mind.

But what I see is a team that has shown us what it is. This is it. The trajectory isn’t improving. The Rams offense sucks, and it isn’t getting better. I don’t know if that is the WRs, Keenum, or Boras. But this sucks. They got 10 points today, and got the TD partly because of generous field position.

The Rams have lost to the 49ers, Bills, Lions, and Giants. These are not upper tier football teams. Even forgetting the 49er fiasco, the Rams should have won at least 2 of the last 3 games. This is certainly 7-9 bullshit. And, again, I don’t know what the problem is with the Rams, but the problem for me is that I am sick and tired of 7-9. That is what this season looks like again, so I am ready for just about anything. A new OC, a new QB, get Spruce in there…I don’t care. We are 7 games in, and nothing suggests that this team is moving to the next level.

So bring in Goff. IMO, the season IS lost. Mathematically it isn’t, of course, but the Rams are in a bad spot with tiebreakers, and they aren’t showing that they can take over a football game against ANYBODY. This is not a playoff team.

This team needs an infusion of energy. And maybe Goff provides that, maybe he doesn’t, but Keenum doesn’t, and the team is listless, drifting, and going nowhere. Fuck it. Give me Goff, or I am going to spend my Sundays working around the house, and checking in on the score once in a while. I am sick of watching this shit.

The greatest success of the oil industry is not that they have made so many Americans doubt the science of global warming, but that they have managed to completely bury the discussion of it. With the amount of emphasis it gets, you would think that as an issue, it has about the same level of importance as … I dunno. Common core, or potholes, or something. In fact, judging by media coverage, the most pressing issues in America are

Trump’s latest faux pas
Clinton’s emails
Terrorism
Immigration

I didn’t watch any of the 3 debates. Am I missing something?

Remember when Sanders was still around, and people were talking about universal health care, college costs, the minimum wage, and wealth disparity? You know…issues that matter.

And, you know, character DOES matter. So that is legitimate. But it was more appealing when actual economic, social, and foreign policy issues were in the headlines.

I hate to be a broken record, but it really feels like the whole thing is sliding down the sewer. The planet is being destroyed by greed and a lust for power. Those two sins have always plagued humans, but technological advances, population growth, and environmental degradation have upped the stakes to a critical level, and we are tipping towards the drain, and I can’t think of one single reason to hope that the slide will be anything other than a Cormac McCarthy nightmare.

I wonder if Amazon will restock those sweaters soon.

Sparky pretty much nails it.

sdram wrote:

The wall was an expensive, silly idea for the most part(approximately 14 Billion + annual maintenance costs). From what I understand approximately 40% of undocumented aliens had their visa’s expire.

I’m hoping the new set of old bureaucrats can actually accomplish some sort of worthwhile immigration reform package whatever that may be. Since Obamacare was passed, they can’t seem to agree on a single issue so nothing truly gets done.

I do not care about immigration. That issue is so far down the list of things that concern me that I’m not even sure it’s on the list. The vast majority of people are decent people who want to work and feel at the end of the day like they’ve done something worthwhile. There are freeloaders on this planet, but I’m pretty sure you will find they are spread out evenly amongst all the races and religions and so on, and if anything, the people who leave behind their families and everything they’ve known all their lives to go start anew in country, risking their lives in the process, well…they are probably – as a demographic – a little LESS likely to be freeloaders. You don’t go through all that just for an inadequate amount of food stamps.

I think the idea of spending $14 billion – or whatever the number is, I don’t even care – on a wall that won’t stop them from coming in anyway is just preposterous. But I don’t even take it the least bit seriously since nobody in government takes it seriously either. It isn’t happening, now or ever.

bnw wrote:

No, he didn’t. She won the popular vote as well. She got more votes. She got more delegates. And she got more super delegates.

Sure she did. Keep believing that. Especially BEFORE the California primary.

I supported Sanders, you may recall. I wanted to believe that her stacking the deck is what made the difference, and maybe it did.

But Sanders did not get more votes. He just didn’t. Not overall.

Now I don’t like the way superdelegates work, I don’t like the way delegates are apportioned in some states, and I don’t like Hillary Clinton.

But she got more votes than Sanders did.

He was good. And he was getting better. He had issues with discipline his first two years, but he was a good player who was getting more disciplined and improving.

Losing him was damaging.

E.J. Gaines is very good, and TruJo is good. So it was a question of priorities. Essentially they let depth walk. And that’s a salary cap decision more than a talent decision. Do you keep three CBs that are very good so you have one in case another gets injured? Or do you keep two good CBs with cheaper depth and allot your resources to somewhere else? The Rams chose the latter. I wish they had kept Jenkins, but I do not follow the CPA stuff, and so I don’t criticize this particular move.

bnw wrote:

Yet with Hildabeast her super delegates in the primary completely negated Bernie’s voters. How many votes did each super delegate equal? Bernie by far had more voters so please tell just how “exclusionary” is that?

No, he didn’t. She won the popular vote as well. She got more votes. She got more delegates. And she got more super delegates.

PA Ram wrote:

And this will produce more Trumps.

People are tired of it.

I would hope we see another Sanders, but Bernie was one of a kind.

I’ve said it before though, and I believe it: if Clinton gets elected and dismisses the public and its concerns for the cool comfort of the Washington establishment, the Democrats will find themselves right where the Republicans are 4 years from now. She will make the most of this opportunity, or she will blow it.

If the system, as is, can’t be moved—both parties are in trouble.

IMO, this was it.

We had the opportunity to elect Sanders, and we didn’t do it, and there is no tomorrow. IMO.

We are screwed. Even if another Sanders (Warren? Feingold?) arises from the sidelines to win, it will be too late anyway. We cannot now avoid catastrophe. And I would wager that we won’t “make the best of a catastrophic situation” by trying to right the ship and minimize further degradation. Instead, we will blow up everything in an attempt to fix it, but the fallout, and the time it takes to reinvent a social system, will take too long.

The run of social stability, the American Dream, has maybe 30 more years at the most. At the most. Best case scenario.

bnw wrote:

Trump will win. It should be by a landslide but the vote fraud of the democrats will not allow it.

Elections are controlled at the state level, not by the feds. And most states’s election boards – representing well over half of the electoral votes needed to win – are controlled by Republicans, including Ohio and Florida and Michigan. And, in fact, the only states in which the elections are controlled by democrats are mortal locks to go to Clinton anyway. Like California and New York.

So the democrats are in no position whatsoever to conduct election fraud on any kind of scale that would flip a state blue, no matter what.

I have no doubt, though, that your crack team of alt-righters will find a couple of people who try to vote without being registered, or maybe even with an expired ID, or something, and as sure as I’m sitting here, that will be enough to unleash the wolves.

Voter fraud has been studied extensively, and has been demonstrated to be statistically irrelevant. The numbers are miniscule.

What does affect the outcome is voter suppression which is scrubbing the voting rolls of names, reducing the number of polling stations in certain precincts and understaffing those stations in order to create long lines, and sending threatening messages via robocalls and phony flyers. This has affected hundreds of thousands of voters, and – guess what? – is an exclusively Republican practice.

I have been told several times that Trump will win.