The issue isn’t currently creating any ill will, let alone dividing the board.

Back to the topic: I did not know that the disuse of the name was official for ANY newspaper or media outlet. I thought only a handful of people had chosen to disuse it.

There are a couple of papers in the Pacific Northwest that quit using the term 15 – 20 years ago (and other Indian nicknames), long before the issue became a national topic of conversation in the past decade. Interesting.

Mackeyser wrote:

Here’s hoping the Washington team is in the middle of dysfunctional mess with Gruden maybe bailing out and the Rams win in a rout.

It REALLY would cause the NFL to take notice if the Rams won two routs in a row…

I could live with that.

wv wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Zooey wrote:</div>
3. Billy Waddy against the Cowboys

2. Flipper Anderson against the Giants

1. Isaac Bruce against the Titans.

I don’t care about acrobatics, or all this nancy boy spectacle stuff.

Those are the three Best Catches I ever saw.

Why do you hate Ricky Proehl ?

w
v

I think because I watched that catch with exhausted relief rather than a paroxysm of joy.

HighPlainsDrifter wrote:

“At any rate, what is the ‘point’ of telling Demoff
or Fisher they are gonna give a salute to the troops,
or pray, or give the hands up gesture ? What is
the point of informing the boss about that?

I mean, i know they can if they want to, but
why should they feel ‘obligated’ to ?”

I guess the “point” would be simply a matter of courtesy. I don’t believe anyone said that the players had any obligation to inform team of their intentions. I do, however, feel that it would have been a show of courtesy and respect for the organization from which you draw your millions of dollars to give them a heads up. We’re talking about a two way street here. The team has had the players’ backs since the event. At least publicly. Would it be too much too expect that the players might give that same consideration? And, for that matter, their actions could prove to have repercussions for their teammates as well. Teammates that had no part of their actions or even knew of it. Would it be too much to suggest that the five players simply take into consideration what consequences their actions could have on their employers or their teammates and weigh the advisability of those actions? Media outlets around the country and many fans (I’ve had conversations with many who know that I am a Rams’ fan) are not separating the actions of five players from the team. It was the St. Louis Rams that did it. No one is arguing their right to do what they did. But I don’t think it is an outrageous notion that they could’ve shown their employer and teammates a little more respect and consideration than to draw them unknowingly into their protest.

This is pure conjecture because I obviously don’t know what was going through the minds of those 5 players, how long beforehand it was premeditated, and what, exactly, they thought they were doing, but I just don’t think they expected it to become this…Thing.

And – I may be wrong – but I suspect that if the St. L PD hadn’t complained about it publicly, that it WOULDN’T have become this…Thing.

As for people who think it’s The St. Louis RAMS who did that, and that it was “in support of thuggery” and so on…well, they aren’t trying very hard to exercise critical thinking on the issue, are they? Seriously.

It doesn’t make any difference because all those people who are experiencing the Outrage D’Jour will be distracted by the next squirrel to dart across the headlines, anyway.

Really, I think this whole thing is blown way out of proportion by the police department and a gaggle of Side With Authority types. Nothing happened on Sunday other than the Rams slaughtered the Raiders 52 – 0.

He was a good poster, and I enjoyed his company. I have always been sorry he didn’t keep posting with us, but now I know why.

RIP JeffM.

I hate the Raiders.

This season has had the worst officiating I remember seeing… since the Replacement Refs season, anyway.

zn wrote:

Zooey wrote:
I haven’t read that. Why don’t the PD guys mention that?

I don;t know. Anyway it’s all very confusing.

I still say it would/will come down to numbers. Billionaires care more about money than their personal feelings.

zn wrote:

Zooey wrote:

@JoeStrauss
I think in February, the Rams are going to file an application to move. Now, that’s to say they’re going to actually move.

STLRamsforever

NFL is not happy with the way SK is conducting business and Rams relocation is NOT on the NFLs agenda. Other owners besides Chargers are not warm to SK moving.

crewe

CM just reported on ESPN. Looks like Stan wouldn’t have votes even if he did try to move.

These reports are BS.

Okay. But how so?

What can Stan possibly be doing to irritate the NFL? He’s a businessman conducting business the same way any of the other businessmen owners in the NFL would do it. And the one defining characteristic of Stan’s “business” so far is that nobody knows what’s going on. It’s all on the quiet, outside the media spotlight.

That’s EXACTLY how the NFL would WANT him to conduct business.

Furthermore, there is nothing to vote on. There are not numbers yet. Businessmen make decisions after looking at numbers.

zn wrote:

Zooey wrote:
I just take the season one game at a time. You can’t live in the past, and you can’t worry about the future. Just give 110% each and every week and leave it all out on the sofa.

Yes but our problems with you stem pretty much from your notorious off-the-coach scandals.

I’m getting mixed messages.

I thought you said the problem was that I was ON the coach.

wv wrote:

Well if the Chargers Center
cant go, I might very well favor the Rams.

w
v

Are you accounting for the fact that McQuaide is questionable, though?

I didn’t go to that much effort before coming to the same conclusion. I just looked at the standings and saw that the Rams lost head-to-head to a bunch of the teams ahead of them in the standings, and saw the difference in wins/losses, and realized the odds are quite remote.

And that’s without even considering the odds of the Rams ending the regular season on a 7-game winning streak with the last game in notorious Seattle where the Hawks will certainly have something on the line.

It isn’t happening.

zn wrote:

Relive the Rams dominant victory over the Broncos.

http://www.stlouisrams.com/videos/videos/Relive-It-Rams-Stop-Broncos/9cb62fc8-8a06-433f-8631-cad7fe8633ca

That was nice. But, really. The video spent as much time on the national anthem highlights as it did the game highlights.

I agree with that mostly, rfl. They should be 6-4. Or even a game better than that.

And clearly it appears the defense is coming around. Should it continue to play well, I will more and more firmly gravitate to the ZN Hypothesis that the Williams scheme is difficult like the McDaniels scheme was for the offense. That it just took more time to get the scheme in place than they had. In which case, we might all wish they had gone about it somehow differently that would have resulted in fewer breakdowns, but will be happy that they have finally caught on to the defense. And maybe that isn’t really their fault.

We did Les Miserables last year, and it was an enormous undertaking to get everybody ready for that. We knew it would take more time than we had. So we started 6 weeks earlier on the production, and 4 weeks earlier on rehearsals than we usually do.

That can’t happen with the players’ union.

I dunno.

All I know is that I am starting to see the defense I was expecting to see, and that’s good. This year is shot in terms of the playoffs, and that’s bad. But there is reasonable hope for some entertainment the rest of the way, and that’s what football is.

And next year, we can get all sky high about the draft picks, and the “year under the belt,” and the return of Bradford, and the development of the young ‘uns….

rfl wrote:

Zooey wrote:
Even if the Rams won six in a row, they probably would not make the playoffs, so I’m not indulging in that fantasy right now just because they put together one complete game against a good team.

As I say elsewhere, I think this team SHOULD have a winning year.

9-7 won’t get the playoffs. But it would be a meaningful achievement. And with the schedule opening up for us, it is I think in reach.

Do it, guys.

Well. Okay. I dunno.

What I know is that we tend to think the team is terrible, and needs a complete teardown after disappointing losses, and think they’ve turned the corner into a powerhouse after a good win. And that every draft is filled with steals, and the combinations of playmakers on offense will make defenses sleepless at night. We get high; we get low.

If they lose to San Diego – especially if the defense has a couple of familiar breakdowns – we will be back to sizing up heads for the chopping block.

9-7 means winning five of the last 6 games. Those games include one against 8-1 Arizona, and games on the road in San Diego and Seattle.

So. I don’t think that’s very likely.

If they do it…yay!

• This reply was modified 10 years, 5 months ago by Zooey.