Forum Replies Created

Viewing 30 posts - 6,811 through 6,840 (of 7,177 total)
1 2 3 … 227 228 229 … 238 239 240
  • Author
    Posts
  • March 12, 2015 at 12:57 am in reply to: Bradford to Eagles, Foles to Rams #20154
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator
    NERam wrote:

    I had it all worked out from my little GM seat on the couch – the Rams would pick up a couple of water buffaloes for the OL, and Bradford would come back to top form, throwing successfully to a not bad group of receivers.

    Now that that little bubble has burst, the OL is still a concern. Foles is coming off an injury, and it has been said that he is not good under pressure. Hope they keep him safe and happy.

    Think he’ll be “horns-worthy”?

    Yeah. I was looking forward to seeing Bradford in a decent environment, too.

    I think Foles will be one of those quarterbacks I will have to think hard to remember in ten years when we try to list all of the QBs who started between Warner and Whoever.

    But I’m going to do a little Ganesh puja tomorrow, and hope for the best.

    March 12, 2015 at 12:11 am in reply to: Question for anyone who does not like the deal #20149
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator
    InvaderRam wrote:

    bradford is only better than foles if he actually plays.

    my expectation is that bradford doesn’t even start the season.

    He played in the pre-season last year with two months less recovery time than he has had this time. The only way he doesn’t start the season is if he gets hurt AGAIN. But maybe that’s what you meant.

    March 11, 2015 at 11:08 pm in reply to: Tweets – 3/11 free agency and stuff #20147
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator
    NERam wrote:

    Per Jim Thomas: Rams have reached out to Detroit DT Nick Fairly. No visit scheduled as of yet.

    DT? That’s the wrong side of the ball,ain’t it? S’post ta be OL, OL and then OL.

    They lost Langford.

    March 11, 2015 at 6:03 pm in reply to: Foles is not elevating this team #20106
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Go back through history and find examples of quarterbacks who did well with only five offensive linemen on the team. I’ll save you the time.

    There aren’t any.

    So to blame Foles for the lack of offensive production at this point is just ridiculous.

    March 11, 2015 at 6:01 pm in reply to: reporters on the trade (Wagoner, Thomas, Clayton, King, & many more) #20105
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I bet there aren’t many starting NFL QBs whose parents have greater net worth than they do.

    March 11, 2015 at 11:38 am in reply to: Question for anyone who does not like the deal #20020
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I take it for granted that the Rams tried to extend him, and couldn’t agree to anything.

    There’s a lot of things here.

    Bradford is better than Foles. And I think a lot better. I was looking forward to seeing him play with actual receivers and an OL. Of course – even now – at the end of Bradford’s contract – there is no certainty the Rams are going to have that. Which is why I didn’t want Bradford in the first place; I wanted Suh. I think it’s better to add a young QB to a good offense rather than start with a good QB and build around him. But I liked what I saw of Bradford, and think he is a good QB.

    I don’t like the deal. Yet. If I had thought about a Bradford trade, I think I would have imagined a bit more in the deal. Yet the Rams reportedly had more than one team interested in Bradford, and they discussed this for weeks with the Eagles. This is what they could get. And it isn’t terrible. They got a guy who, at worst, is mediocre, and frankly that’s better than what a lot of teams have at the position. Both QBs have upside, and both are a gamble. Truly, in three years time, one of these teams could look brilliant and the other team look completely ridiculous for this trade, and right now, there is no certainty which team is which. We don’t know.

    An interesting aspect of the deal is the salary cap clearance.

    Apparently that mattered to the Rams. It BETTER have mattered. What are they going to do with that cap space? Because that is a significant part of this equation. What they do with that money actually has to be factored into this deal. Will it allow them to keep productive players they would lose otherwise? Are they going to buy a FA or two that they couldn’t have afforded without this?

    So, I dunno. I think we have to see what they do with that cap space to get the whole picture, but my first reaction is – No. I wouldn’t have made this trade.

    March 11, 2015 at 12:28 am in reply to: Bradford to Eagles, Foles to Rams #19935
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator
    sdram wrote:

    No NFL ticket!! – that’s crazy talk there. I’d have to watch the vikings every week or talk to my wife more. Not many solid options there.

    Well. I’ve never had NFL Ticket, and wouldn’t have got it no matter what anyway.

    March 10, 2015 at 11:04 pm in reply to: Bradford to Eagles, Foles to Rams #19924
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I wanna puke.

    I am not going to buy season tickets this year. I am not even going to get NFL Ticket. That’s that.

    Palm Face

    March 9, 2015 at 2:18 pm in reply to: Eagles rumors: Sanchez, Foles, Mariota … including Foles to Rams #19719
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Well, I think what Foles has that the other available QBs don’t have is an indefinite ceiling.

    All the other guys out there have pretty much exhausted their “potential upside growth.” They are what they are. They are past the point of “hopefully he’ll be better next year.”

    Foles may have peaked, too. We just don’t know for sure yet.

    March 9, 2015 at 1:56 pm in reply to: Eagles rumors: Sanchez, Foles, Mariota … including Foles to Rams #19715
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I have no objection to Foles. There may be something there. I hope it doesn’t cost a 2nd round pick, though.

    March 8, 2015 at 8:51 pm in reply to: Suh signs with Dolphins #19676
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I don’t know how that is structured, but that looks like bad news for everybody. That is better than most QBs make.

    March 7, 2015 at 4:05 pm in reply to: Miklasz: Bradford should cut Rams a break #19618
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Zooey: Miklasz Should Cut Rams Fans a Break

    I just had to say that. It was too tempting.

    But, really, the only way Bradford takes a cut this year is with an extension. And so it’s not really a cut, but a cap thing.

    Bradford can go into this year without an extension. If he gets hurt again, his second contract value plummets. If he does well, he gets a pay raise. He may be willing to take that gamble because he’s already made enough money to last a lifetime if he has any financial brains. So he would be betting on himself.

    I don’t have a problem with that.

    March 7, 2015 at 12:58 pm in reply to: Ironies in Iraq #19599
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator
    nittany ram wrote:

    Here’s a discussion that touches on that…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ASaddam_Hussein/naming

    Well, that’s all cleared up.

    March 6, 2015 at 1:35 pm in reply to: Ironies in Iraq #19574
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    It is remarkable to me that Saddam Hussein is routinely referred to by his first name. I don’t remember articles referring to Margaret and Ronald.

    There’s Napoleon, of course. But…what the hell?

    March 5, 2015 at 10:25 pm in reply to: Darnell Docket signs with 49ers #19512
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I hope he has a forgettable time playing for the 49ers, and has a long, losing season.

    March 5, 2015 at 12:58 pm in reply to: Ferguson #19489
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Well.

    That’s disgusting.

    While I’m not surprised that these biases exist, I am surprised by how open and pervasive they are.

    My goodness, what a wreck.

    March 3, 2015 at 10:47 pm in reply to: JT chat … 3/4 #19408
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I’ll only go this far on that: I think Raiders are a more likely candidate than the Raiders.
    by jthomas 4:47 PM

    Don’t know about that.

    I’d rate that as a toss-up, myself.

    March 2, 2015 at 10:01 pm in reply to: Vincent Bonsignore, LA Sports columnist #19365
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    By the way, new renderings:

    March 2, 2015 at 9:58 pm in reply to: Vincent Bonsignore, LA Sports columnist #19364
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator
    InvaderRam wrote:

    the raiders are worth 797 million. the rams are worth 750 million. i could see that happening. the rams staying in st. louis and kroenke moving the raiders to los angeles. he might actually prefer that as i think the raiders have a bigger following in los angeles. although that would majorly bum out los angeles rams fans.

    Nobody cares about Los Angeles Rams fans except Los Angeles Rams fans. That sounds harsh, but it’s true.

    Your scenario is possible, but I can make it worse.

    Kroenke and Davis trade franchise NAMES. The Rams (newly christened the Raiders) move to Los Angeles as the Raiders, and the Raiders switch uniforms and move to St. Louis to be the Rams.

    Cuz maybe they don’t want to trade their entire organizations that they have been building. Kroenke may very well want to hang onto his front office, Fisher and his crew, and his players. All of them become Los Angeles Raiders, but the “Rams” are still in St. Louis.

    How’s that sound?

    I’m not sure I could survive that.

    March 1, 2015 at 11:16 pm in reply to: Vincent Bonsignore, LA Sports columnist #19330
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator
    TackleDummy wrote:

    Zooey wrote:
    The point is that to discount Carson because of lack of money is not logical. The interested parties have time to put money together.

    The Carson project is more likely to fall apart because a better alternative arises, imo. For one or both teams.

    I agree with that. As long as both teams stay a part of the Carson project it will not fail. But selling a part of a team would not really be an option for the Chargers and especially not the Raiders. I think that it is likely that both the Chargers and the Raiders will have to borrow to meet their $250M contributions to build the stadium. (Note, it will not be the owners who will be doing the borrowing, but rather the teams.) But the league contribution, plus the team contributions, plus PSLs will go a long way toward the total cost of building the stadium. The rest (probably under $500M) will not be too difficult to raise from private sources in LA. It is probably worth noting that both owners, Mark Davis (along with his mother Carol) and Alex Spanos are among the league’s least wealthy. ( http://www.chatsports.com/nfl/a/How-Much-Is-Each-NFL-Owner-Worth-10-206-847 ) Neither has a significant amount of wealth outside of their team ownership.

    Well, I don’t think financing is their biggest hurdle. Maybe it will end up that way, but if I was them, I would worry about

    1. the other team getting an offer elsewhere
    2. the environmental clean-up of the site
    3. resistance to re-alignment amongst owners

    March 1, 2015 at 2:51 pm in reply to: Farewell Mr. Spock #19317
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I was surprised to discover I felt sadness when I heard the news. You know, celebrity humans come and go. It’s the way of the world.

    Usually, I think, “Damn. I liked that guy.”

    But there was a bit of sorrow with this one. Perhaps fondness developed in childhood is the most potent. I don’t know.

    March 1, 2015 at 12:51 pm in reply to: Vincent Bonsignore, LA Sports columnist #19287
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator
    zn wrote:

    TackleDummy wrote:
    So if Davis sold any of his share of the Raiders he would not be in control of the Raiders.

    According to the NFL constitution, a principal or controlling owner must own at least 30% of a team.

    I don’t know what that means in relation to the Raiders.

    Whatever.

    The point is that to discount Carson because of lack of money is not logical. The interested parties have time to put money together.

    The Carson project is more likely to fall apart because a better alternative arises, imo. For one or both teams.

    March 1, 2015 at 11:36 am in reply to: Vincent Bonsignore, LA Sports columnist #19282
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator
    znhater wrote:

    Just someone else’s opinion. And when was the last time they hosted a super bowl in a rams stadium? Oh yeah, never. Kroenke is building the stadium. It remains to be seen if the st. Louis proposal even gets off the ground. I just can’t see him letting another team play there whem he settles for a stadium he won’t own. Plus San Diego and Oakland don’t have any money. It’s all just a ploy to get a better deal where they are now.

    Just my opinion like everyone else’s but none of the other makes sense to me. Build on toxic land lol. I just don’t see it happening.

    Don’t be so sure. The St. Louis proposal looks good on paper, and apparently the NFL likes it because Grubman has flown to St. Louis twice to talk to Peacock since Kroenke’s plan was unveiled, and have said encouraging things publicly. I’d say it’s pretty clear that the NFL likes Peacock’s proposal enough to encourage its development as a future NFL home. And since that stadium is going to be built in St. Louis, that means a team in St. Louis, and the Rams are the logical tenant.

    It is true that the money has not been worked out for the Carson site, but even though Spanos and Davis are not as wealthy as Kroenke, they are both billionaires, and there are two of them. The NFL can kick in money, public money could be used, and they could sell pieces of their teams to raise more capital. There are ways it can work. It is true, though, that the Carson proposal is much weaker at this point than Kroenke’s. But Kroenke’s project has everybody working intently to create viable alternatives.

    February 28, 2015 at 6:40 pm in reply to: Net Neutrality Wins #19264
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator
    nittany ram wrote:

    Let that last one sink in a bit. Sadly, this is what we are up against as a country.

    Jim Inhofe brought a snowball onto the Senate floor as proof against global warming.

    idiot

    I think maybe it would be better (safer?) for the rest of the world if we weren’t a country anymore.

    There should be a Mercy Rule.

    Once a nation’s Total Stupidity Index reaches a certain level, it’s just time….

    February 28, 2015 at 6:26 pm in reply to: Wagoner: Rams mailbag #19261
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator
    zn wrote:

    Zooey wrote:

    nittany ram wrote:

    Do you want to delete this, or did you just post it wrong? I can add-edit anything you want into the post. Up to you.

    So, see…here’s the thing.

    I wrote an absolutely scathing attack on Nittany. It was brilliant. Sure to reduce him to cinders. And tears. Only the whole thing hinged upon my assumption that the Rams actually CAN’T sign this guy right now because there is no signing of players for another 10 days.

    Except that applies to free agents.

    And I’m not sure about guys who got cut. They aren’t Free Agents in the same sense. I don’t know about the rules for signing these guys. And thinking that the pain of being exposed as ignorant myself right when I am arrogantly denouncing Nittany’s ignorance…well, I thought better of it.

    Not because I was worried about MY reputation. I was just worried that everyone might lose sight of the fact that Nittany is an ignorant slut.

    So I deleted it. Only I can’t delete the whole post. Something has to live in the box.

    February 28, 2015 at 6:01 pm in reply to: Wagoner: Rams mailbag #19256
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator
    nittany ram wrote:
    • This reply was modified 9 years, 11 months ago by Avatar photoZooey.
    February 28, 2015 at 4:15 pm in reply to: Net Neutrality Wins #19246
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/27/1367408/-Between-the-llamas-and-the-dress-you-may-have-missed-Fox-News-reaction-to-Net-Neutrality-decision?detail=email

    Between the llamas and the dress, you may have missed Fox News’ reaction to Net Neutrality decision
    byJen HaydenFollow

    February 26, 2015 was quite a day for the denizens of the internet world. First, the epic decision by the FCC to keep the internet open and free, followed by the great Arizona llama escape and finally the incredible dress debate.

    In all the excitement, you probably missed the Fox News coverage of the Net Neutrality decision.

    It’s the end of the internet as we know it!

    “Broad regulation of how Americans use the internet.” Curious choice of language given that Net Neutrality is about maintaining an open internet.
    Net Neutrality is the Internet’s guiding principle: It preserves our right to communicate freely online. This is the definition of an open Internet.

    Net Neutrality means an Internet that enables and protects free speech. It means that Internet service providers should provide us with open networks — and should not block or discriminate against any applications or content that ride over those networks. Just as your phone company shouldn’t decide who you can call and what you say on that call, your ISP shouldn’t be concerned with the content you view or post online.

    Without Net Neutrality, cable and phone companies could carve the Internet into fast and slow lanes. An ISP could slow down its competitors’ content or block political opinions it disagreed with. ISPs could charge extra fees to the few content companies that could afford to pay for preferential treatment — relegating everyone else to a slower tier of service. This would destroy the open Internet.

    So, how did Fox News fans react to the decision to keep the internet open and free? With unbridled outrage. Of course. I’m not including any names, only the comments, but below are a sample of the most uprated comments from the Fox News Facebook page:

    Hey 51% of you morons voted for him twice. You get what you get. And for those of you who stayed home and didn’t vote for Mitt….up yours !

    There goes Internet freedom. First thing will be no Fox News web site.

    So I guess our first amendment rights don’t matter.

    There goes the Internet as we know it.

    Are we living in North Korea??? Wait.. we must not… they at least control their borders.

    The Fall of Rome

    Obama is trash

    I didn’t realize that something needed to be “fixed”. Leave it to the government to step in a fix something that didn’t need to be fixed.

    Take freedom one bite at a time and the country watches in silence.

    Next he is after the bullets. How is it that we are putting up with this? I don’t care what this guy’s religion is or where he was born, it is too late to care about that, but I truly care that he is single handedly destroying the Constitution of the United States and for that he should be removed from office.

    Venezuela did the same thing as they tightened down on their communist regime. Then when the GNB was arresting, raping, and killing student protesters, they blocked the Internet and social media accounts of dissidents who where uploading all the proof to Twitter and Facebook… And this was all last year, by the way.

    The FCC just voted for government to sensor all content distributed onto the web. Prepare to be brainwashed with Liberal propaganda, and the word Freedom stripped from our vocabulary.

    Thanks again to the uneducated voters who have laid out my children’s and Grand Children’s futures. Much appreciated.

    Let that last one sink in a bit. Sadly, this is what we are up against as a country.

    February 27, 2015 at 3:23 pm in reply to: Republicans are terrifying me again #19199
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    “I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
    “I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
    “I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
    “I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
    “I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
    “I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
    “I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
    “I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
    “I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
    “I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
    “I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
    “I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
    “I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
    “I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
    “I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
    “I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.
    “I like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Sarah Palin,” he said.

    February 26, 2015 at 10:25 pm in reply to: Facts related to NFL relocations (and a prediction) #19163
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator
    InvaderRam wrote:

    he’s the only one of the three owners who just went forward with his plans and is making something happen.

    This is the key to me.

    For thirty years, there has been nothing but talk in LA about stadiums.

    For 20 years, LA has been there for the taking.

    Kroenke is the only guy who is making it happen. He owns the land. He has political clearance. He has the money. He needs No Help from anybody. The shovels are on site.

    The other stuff matters. It matters a lot.

    But the window of opportunity for alternatives is closing, and the competing groups have approximately a year to match, or there will be no showdown. Spanos can whine all day and night, but if he hasn’t got shovels on site, he’s toasted. Same with St. Louis.

    I think there is enough time for those alternatives to match Kroenke and force a showdown, so it isn’t locked up, but those groups are going to have to show the committee a rock-solid plan, or they are going to be denied a seat at the table. Kroenke is already at the table.

    By the way, I think the flaw in the St. Louis plan is that it asks Kroenke to pony up money. And I don’t think the NFL can tell a guy he HAS to spend his money on someone else’s business plan, regardless of how much they love that plan. They just cannot make him do it. The contract was to upgrade the dome, and they aren’t doing that, so no matter what, they are not meeting the terms of the agreement, and Kroenke is essentially a free agent. They can’t make him stay in the dome, and they can’t make him invest in the St. Louis stadium. So I don’t know where that leaves everything legally. The courts, I guess.

    February 26, 2015 at 8:58 pm in reply to: Facts related to NFL relocations (and a prediction) #19155
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator
    TackleDummy wrote:

    I agree with you that assumption 5 is the most likely to break down. Both owners have indicated that they would prefer to stay in their present cities. However, if assumption 5 does not hold up but the other assumptions do hold that will not make much difference to the Rams and St Louis. The Rams would stay in St. Louis but they would also stay in the NFC West.

    With all of the statements coming out of the league office over the past many years about wanting to keep teams where they are I do not think that if the Riverfront Stadium gets final approval before the end of the year that the Rams will move from St. Louis. Even if Kroenke wanted to “go rogue” he might not be able to. There are rules put in place since Al Davis was doing his thing that would prevent that.

    Right now, I really believe that the Rams will remain in St. Louis in the new Riverfront stadium.

    As far as the way Kroenke got control of the Rams, that was a fairly unique thing. He had a clause in his ownership of 30% of the Rams that gave him right of first refusal if the Rams were sold. This plan had been approved by the league even though he had ownership in other teams. It would have been a real legal problem if the NFL turned Kroenke down.

    We disagree on #3 and #4, then.

    The NFL would PREFER to abide by their bylaws, but I have every confidence they will weasel their way around them if they want to. I am sure their PR people will compile some manure to explain it all. If it comes to that.

    I am less certain of #4. I used to think Kroenke wouldn’t go rogue, but “rogueishness” will come in degrees here. If – as I said – he gets, say, 20 or 22 votes, but not they requisite 24, I can see him plowing ahead. He will have a bunch of owners that have no stomach for a fight over the issue, a fight that is going to cost millions of dollars and damage the shield in the news, especially when they think his plan is a good one. I think in this case, everybody settles. Kroenke ends up paying a fee, or “fine,” or whatever makes the most sense in terms of PR, and that’s that. And if you agree that the NFL didn’t want a legal problem contesting Kroenke’s assumption of ownership of the Rams, I don’t know why you think they would have any greater stomach for a fight over LA when he is going to deliver a HUGE asset to the league and a majority of the owners favor it, even if it doesn’t quite hit the 75% bar. I mean…they aren’t going to vote 31-1 against this move. So what does going rogue even mean?

    Meanwhile, Baron Kroenke has been working towards LA a LONG time, and he isn’t going to accept a minority bloc of votes killing his plan and just roll up his blueprints. He will take another swing at the fence post.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 30 posts - 6,811 through 6,840 (of 7,177 total)
1 2 3 … 227 228 229 … 238 239 240