zn wrote:

So for example it would not even occur to him to compare the relative experience of the Rams D v. the ARZ D, or the Rams OL v. the ARZ OL. That stuff is just not on his horizon. He doesn’t even think to do it. When confronted with material like that, and an analysis that differs from his, he trots out the great “shut down conversation” word….”excuses.” (Excuses = an analysis you don’t like. That’s it, that’s all it ever means in football discussions

Nor does he look at what the Cardinals had vs. the Rams to begin with.

I look at Bernie as a fan. A fan with a significant homer bent to everything he sees. That’s really what he is except he has a column. He isn’t objective, and I don’t think he knows how to be. Like you said, he is a cherry-picker. Sometimes he is interesting to read.

The Cardinals will look back on this game as one for which they wish that they had never suited up.

Agamemnon wrote:

It sounds like now, that Toon was signed to the Practice Squad. That would make more sense.

I didn’t think players with more than a couple of years experience could be signed to a practice squad.

nittany ram wrote:

Agamemnon wrote:

REPORT: St. Louis Rams Will Sign WR Nick Toon

The obvious suggested implication? WR Brian Quick is done. After the serious shoulder and rotator cuff injury he suffered last year, he nearly had his career cut short for him:

Well, does it necessarily mean Quick is finished? Perhaps it’s just a case of Fisher looking for immediate help for an offense averaging 8 pts a game over the last two weeks.

Quick may still figure into his plans when he’s finally back to full speed, if that happens.

Well, somebody is done. Presumably a WR.

Another shoe is sailing earthward now.

Tavon has actually shut me up this year so far. He has been a very good complementary player.

The problem is that so far there has been no one to complement.

zn wrote:

Zooey wrote:

They all have to deal with price, performance, and fuel economy.

As do we…ie. the consumers. We want emissions standards. If some businesses can’t deal maybe they can retract some of their rhetoric about being competitive. Cause many auto makers handle this stuff and thrive.

Yeah. Because while a car with emission controls costs a bit more, it doesn’t cost as much as treating asthma, bronchitis, and cancer. Etc.

bnw wrote:

Not funny. Though I hope I can get one much cheaper as a result. Amazing technology yet it couldn’t keep up with ever stringent EPA mandates. Won’t be limited to VW either.

I don’t think it’s because they COULDN’T keep up. It’s that it was cheaper to bypass the regulations.

I saw your post about two hours ago, and didn’t catch the allusion.

Just opened up a news site….

That’s hilarious.

You know what Franke said about the defense that was brilliant?

Kirk Cousins had the highest INT rate of any NFL QB; heaven forbid we would want to defend WRs tightly and put pressure on him to try to force him into mistakes.

Ahem.

wv wrote:

I personally, did not think Foles was “inaccurate” last week.
I dont think thats the word i would use. That pass to Stedman
was like Warner-to-Proehl. It was dead perfect in the clutch.

w
v

Well, you’re totally wrong. Completely and utterly, mind-blowingly wrong.

Go read Franke’s review. (I think it was him who verified what I saw). Foles had a couple bad passes, a throw completely behind Cook (I think), and one he sailed over somebody’s head. But he also had several passes that floated too much, that made the receiver hitch up, and otherwise failed to lead the way Warner and Bulger did. Throw it where the receiver can catch it in stride and run with it.

He got away with it more last week, and yes, the throw to Bailey was pinpoint accurate. I’m not saying he’s NEVER accurate. The TD pass to Britt today was pretty damn sharp. But he missed a wide open Austin for a TD today, and I don’t know how many other passes – several under 10 yards in the air – he flat out missed and threw incomplete. He was worse today, for sure, but all last week he had several completions that made me feel like I was on an old wooden roller coaster.

Last week, they had Givens, Bailey, Britt, and Austin. Then they had Marquez because he is good at special teams – as we saw on a couple of plays he made.

There just wasn’t room.

I suspect Fisher is also telling Quick to up his game.

I understand you’re busy, RM, and don’t expect a solution soon, but is there a quick way to up the contrast in the interim? The text is hard to read. Can it be made black, or something?

zn wrote:

I buy that they trade short yards for no big gains, with the premise that (1) they tighten up in the redzone, and (2) they are forcing teams to make long drives with no mistakes.

When Wms defenses are top 10 in yards they are also top 10 in points allowed. To me that justifies the blizing. That is, when it works, it works.

But why not play tight? If the blitz is coming, there isn’t as much time for a receiver to make separation. If you’re playing loose, and the QB sees the blitz coming, he throws quicker, and completes it because you’re playing back. Tight coverage makes more sense to me on a blitz.

Okay, enough already.

This is weird.

It’s like…the national media are all just taking it for granted that the Rams are good. How did this happen all of a sudden?

Back in ’99, they had to go through various stages to arrive at Acceptance that the Rams were good: denial, they’re lucky, they haven’t played anybody, running up the score against bad teams, whatever.

This is just weird. A lot of the heads picked the Rams to beat Seattle, and now they’re #9 in USA Today, and all these guys are giving the Rams the WA game, like they are taking it for granted, “Yeah, the Rams are a good, solid football team.” They aren’t even being called “up-and-coming” or anything. You would think the Rams were in the playoffs the last couple of years.