Forum Replies Created

Viewing 30 posts - 7,651 through 7,680 (of 7,900 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I was just using the snowblower. Man. I don’t know how anyone ever survived the world before snowblowers.

    Honest it was like this:

    v

    What’s the white stuff?

    60 degrees here, and it hasn’t rained in 2015.

    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Just to be utterly clear. s You’re playing around, right? You don’t really have an issue with the format thing? (If you do, it’s fine…speak up!)

    Don’t care. Quoting it was merely a convention on my part to state that it was someone else’s property. The link and byline do that, and it’s easier to read. I get it. I’ve always quoted articles, but it’s unnecessary.

    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    NFL
    Find this article at:

    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000463601/article/rams-owners-stadium-plan-pushes-nfl-closer-to-la-return

    Rams owner’s stadium plan pushes NFL closer to L.A. return

    By Albert Breer
    NFL Media reporter
    Published: Jan. 26, 2015 at 04:00 p.m. Updated: Jan. 27, 2015 at 09:23 a.m.

    After two decades away, the NFL is closer than it has ever been to returning to Los Angeles.

    And after so many false starts since the Raiders and Rams bolted at the end of the 1994 season, one league source said, “We’re beginning to see the goal line.”

    The early January announcement that Rams owner Stan Kroenke is planning an extravagant Inglewood stadium sent shockwaves through NFL circles, but — according to those with direct knowledge of the proceedings — was met with quiet applause at the league office, which has been waiting for a powerful plan like this one to get behind. And despite St. Louis and Missouri officials responding quickly with their own stadium vision, the momentum here has very clearly shifted west.

    The bottom line is, this L.A. proposal is not like its predecessors. It’s the first led by a team owner, blowing up the league’s long-held belief that juggling the task of running a team with managing such a project in the nation’s second biggest city would be too big a burden. It’s on the largest plot of land of any of the proposed L.A. sites. It’s in a more desirable end of the region. It’s to be privately funded by a man who can afford it.

    It’s not done, of course. But the idea that the Rams could be playing at the Rose Bowl, L.A. Coliseum or Dodger Stadium in 2016 and 2017 and in Kroenke’s new Southern California football palace in 2018 is not at all far-fetched. In fact, it’s trending toward becoming a likelihood.

    “It’s a bold move by Stan,” said one source who has worked with the league on Los Angeles. “Whether it results in a stadium at the site billed by the parties, whether it’s the Rams going in, or a different team, or two teams, that much we don’t know.”

    There is more certainty here than meets the eye, though.

    According to two involved sources, the Rams presented the project to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell before the December owners meetings in Dallas. As it worked out, that was as Goodell and the league were getting the new personal conduct policy ready for voting. And the plan had always been for the commissioner to turn more attention to L.A. once the policy was done. Suffice it to say, Kroenke gave him plenty to chew on.

    Two big steps are expected this week. The Rams will provide notice to St. Louis that they’re going year-to-year on their lease before Wednesday’s deadline to do so. And they’ll likely turn in to the city of Inglewood the 8,500 signatures necessary to set up a public vote, which will most likely take place in the spring, to re-zone the land where the stadium will be built. According to a source, the team already has the signatures in hand. UPDATE: The team informed the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission on Monday about its decision to change the lease to year-to-year. Also on Monday, per a source, 20,000-plus signatures were delivered to Inglewood in support of bringing the matter to a vote.

    The 60-acre plot Kroenke bought in January 2014 is approved for a stadium, but the adjacent 238-acre area owned by the Stockbridge Capital Group isn’t. Once all 298 acres are zoned properly, shovels can break ground.

    And therein lies the other difference in Inglewood: the size of the area where the stadium would go up. By comparison, the NFL’s largest physical structure, Cowboys Stadium, sits on a plot of just 73 acres.

    NFL officials deferred comment on the recent developments to the Rams, who declined to discuss their plans. But no matter how you chop all this up and put it together, St. Louis is on the clock. A St. Louis stadium task force presented its plan to Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon earlier this month. It included the dream of an open-air, 64,000-seat stadium on the banks of the Mississippi River that could also potentially be home to a Major League Soccer franchise.

    Two things need to happen for that stadium — which, on paper, isn’t as modern as projects in Minneapolis or Atlanta, though that could certainly change — to go forward, and neither step will be simple. First, the land needs to be acquired. Second, financing needs to be secured, with the expectation being that it’ll be a 40-60 public-private split. It’s unclear at this point if it’ll take a vote to get there.

    How that plays out will determine whether or not the club meets the league’s relocation guidelines, which call for a team to demonstrate that the existing market has failed. If the financing includes an eventual public contribution, that will make it tougher for the Rams to qualify for relocation, but if the St. Louis plan does not end up including much public money, that could grease the skids for a move. In any case, the Rams have been less successful than the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders when it comes to demonstrating that their market has failed.

    But all of that might not matter. Remember, the league has a huge interest in making Los Angeles work, one way or another, and this project seems to meet the right-team, right-owner, right-stadium threshold.

    The way it’s been laid out to the clubs, the league wants the L.A. stadium to be an iconic venue that’s a sports and entertainment destination. This vast property would satisfy that, with a number of projects expected to pop up on the periphery within the grounds around the team’s home, creating a West Coast headquarters of sorts for the league.

    Kroenke is also amenable to the idea of having a second team as part of the project, according to a source, which would help the NFL make the most of the effort.

    At the very least, Kroenke’s bombshell accelerated the L.A. timeline and put pressure on a number of entities with an interest in the market — on the cities of Los Angeles (proper) and Carson to push their projects forward, on the cities of Oakland, San Diego and St. Louis to ramp up efforts to keep their own teams, and on the Raiders and Chargers to figure out their futures. The movement on the St. Louis stadium effort is proof positive of that.

    The NFL does still have some control here. Three-quarters of the owners must vote to approve the move, as is required in the bylaws for relocation, and some league waivers and funding likely would be needed to make the project right. Also, Kroenke still hasn’t satisfied the league’s cross-ownership rules by divesting himself of the NBA’s Denver Nuggets and NHL’s Colorado Avalanche, something he has until the end of the calendar year to do.

    But what’s really important here is much simpler than that: The powers that be on Park Avenue have been waiting a long time for the right roadmap to get back to L.A.

    It seems like Kroenke gave it to them.

    And if they see it like that, it’s unlikely anything will stand in the way.

    Follow Albert Breer on Twitter @AlbertBreer.

    What do you think of THAT Format Hell, zn?

    Go ahead. Delete it. See if I care.

    edit

    Wow. Looks like an expensive framing job.

    • This reply was modified 11 years, 1 month ago by Avatar photoZooey.
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    NFL
    Find this article at:
    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000463601/article/rams-owners-stadium-plan-pushes-nfl-closer-to-la-return
    Rams owner’s stadium plan pushes NFL closer to L.A. return

    By Albert Breer
    NFL Media reporter
    Published: Jan. 26, 2015 at 04:00 p.m. Updated: Jan. 27, 2015 at 09:23 a.m.

    After two decades away, the NFL is closer than it has ever been to returning to Los Angeles.

    And after so many false starts since the Raiders and Rams bolted at the end of the 1994 season, one league source said, “We’re beginning to see the goal line.”

    The early January announcement that Rams owner Stan Kroenke is planning an extravagant Inglewood stadium sent shockwaves through NFL circles, but — according to those with direct knowledge of the proceedings — was met with quiet applause at the league office, which has been waiting for a powerful plan like this one to get behind. And despite St. Louis and Missouri officials responding quickly with their own stadium vision, the momentum here has very clearly shifted west.

    The bottom line is, this L.A. proposal is not like its predecessors. It’s the first led by a team owner, blowing up the league’s long-held belief that juggling the task of running a team with managing such a project in the nation’s second biggest city would be too big a burden. It’s on the largest plot of land of any of the proposed L.A. sites. It’s in a more desirable end of the region. It’s to be privately funded by a man who can afford it.

    It’s not done, of course. But the idea that the Rams could be playing at the Rose Bowl, L.A. Coliseum or Dodger Stadium in 2016 and 2017 and in Kroenke’s new Southern California football palace in 2018 is not at all far-fetched. In fact, it’s trending toward becoming a likelihood.

    “It’s a bold move by Stan,” said one source who has worked with the league on Los Angeles. “Whether it results in a stadium at the site billed by the parties, whether it’s the Rams going in, or a different team, or two teams, that much we don’t know.”

    There is more certainty here than meets the eye, though.

    According to two involved sources, the Rams presented the project to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell before the December owners meetings in Dallas. As it worked out, that was as Goodell and the league were getting the new personal conduct policy ready for voting. And the plan had always been for the commissioner to turn more attention to L.A. once the policy was done. Suffice it to say, Kroenke gave him plenty to chew on.

    Two big steps are expected this week. The Rams will provide notice to St. Louis that they’re going year-to-year on their lease before Wednesday’s deadline to do so. And they’ll likely turn in to the city of Inglewood the 8,500 signatures necessary to set up a public vote, which will most likely take place in the spring, to re-zone the land where the stadium will be built. According to a source, the team already has the signatures in hand. UPDATE: The team informed the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission on Monday about its decision to change the lease to year-to-year. Also on Monday, per a source, 20,000-plus signatures were delivered to Inglewood in support of bringing the matter to a vote.

    The 60-acre plot Kroenke bought in January 2014 is approved for a stadium, but the adjacent 238-acre area owned by the Stockbridge Capital Group isn’t. Once all 298 acres are zoned properly, shovels can break ground.

    And therein lies the other difference in Inglewood: the size of the area where the stadium would go up. By comparison, the NFL’s largest physical structure, Cowboys Stadium, sits on a plot of just 73 acres.

    NFL officials deferred comment on the recent developments to the Rams, who declined to discuss their plans. But no matter how you chop all this up and put it together, St. Louis is on the clock. A St. Louis stadium task force presented its plan to Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon earlier this month. It included the dream of an open-air, 64,000-seat stadium on the banks of the Mississippi River that could also potentially be home to a Major League Soccer franchise.

    Two things need to happen for that stadium — which, on paper, isn’t as modern as projects in Minneapolis or Atlanta, though that could certainly change — to go forward, and neither step will be simple. First, the land needs to be acquired. Second, financing needs to be secured, with the expectation being that it’ll be a 40-60 public-private split. It’s unclear at this point if it’ll take a vote to get there.

    How that plays out will determine whether or not the club meets the league’s relocation guidelines, which call for a team to demonstrate that the existing market has failed. If the financing includes an eventual public contribution, that will make it tougher for the Rams to qualify for relocation, but if the St. Louis plan does not end up including much public money, that could grease the skids for a move. In any case, the Rams have been less successful than the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders when it comes to demonstrating that their market has failed.

    But all of that might not matter. Remember, the league has a huge interest in making Los Angeles work, one way or another, and this project seems to meet the right-team, right-owner, right-stadium threshold.

    The way it’s been laid out to the clubs, the league wants the L.A. stadium to be an iconic venue that’s a sports and entertainment destination. This vast property would satisfy that, with a number of projects expected to pop up on the periphery within the grounds around the team’s home, creating a West Coast headquarters of sorts for the league.

    Kroenke is also amenable to the idea of having a second team as part of the project, according to a source, which would help the NFL make the most of the effort.

    At the very least, Kroenke’s bombshell accelerated the L.A. timeline and put pressure on a number of entities with an interest in the market — on the cities of Los Angeles (proper) and Carson to push their projects forward, on the cities of Oakland, San Diego and St. Louis to ramp up efforts to keep their own teams, and on the Raiders and Chargers to figure out their futures. The movement on the St. Louis stadium effort is proof positive of that.

    The NFL does still have some control here. Three-quarters of the owners must vote to approve the move, as is required in the bylaws for relocation, and some league waivers and funding likely would be needed to make the project right. Also, Kroenke still hasn’t satisfied the league’s cross-ownership rules by divesting himself of the NBA’s Denver Nuggets and NHL’s Colorado Avalanche, something he has until the end of the calendar year to do.

    But what’s really important here is much simpler than that: The powers that be on Park Avenue have been waiting a long time for the right roadmap to get back to L.A.

    It seems like Kroenke gave it to them.

    And if they see it like that, it’s unlikely anything will stand in the way.

    Follow Albert Breer on Twitter @AlbertBreer.

    in reply to: Breaking News in Pats Investigation #17448
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Well, if the Patriots win, I could see the NFL skating the issue, because they certainly don’t want a tainted Super Bowl winner.

    OR, regardless of the outcome (and much more likely if the Pats lose), the NFL could really come down hard on the Patriots because they’ve already tainted the playoffs … and what better way to deter tampering in the future than to smack the Pats. I would propose a year-long suspension to Belicheat, a loss of 1st-round picks for the next 3 years, and a $10 million fine to the organization. And, that’s with no direct evidence. Remember, the NFL already set a precedent of coming down hard on a head coach without any direct evidence that he participated in a violation when they suspended Sean Payton for a year. With direct evidence, pretty much double the suspension and triple the fine.

    Well….what if Belichick didnt know? …don’t shoot
    the questioner.

    w
    v

    Then he gets a one year paid vacation erroneously, but serves to make a point.

    in reply to: Jim Tomsula new 49ers HC #17447
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Give that guy a Jimmy Kennedy and a Johnny Manziel and see how long that philosophy goes unammended.

    in reply to: Should NFL players have to talk to media? #17442
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Yes, they should talk, unless a doctor says they have a social anxiety disorder. If you’re the NFL, you need the media. You let players clam up, and you reduce the number of happy story lines in the media and reduce exposure of your sport to the fans. You know, those reporters still have to fill copy … I think you’d rather have them doing that with little chitty-chatty stuff with the players than actually think and dig into substantive issues.

    Yeah, but there will always be people who WANT to talk, who want to be in front of the cameras.

    A few Marshawn Lynches aside, the airwaves will still be full of guys “giving it 110% on the field, and taking it all one game at a time.”

    in reply to: Should NFL players have to talk to media? #17422
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I think they shouldn’t be allowed to talk to the media. Think of the hours and hours of boring interviews we would be spared from.

    in reply to: the repeat topic: OL #17385
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    My father-in-law has pointed out that anything is easy…if you know how to do it.

    Getting two solid-to-good OL (and a qb) is easy. That’s 3 guys.

    Ya just have to get the right three.

    The trick is knowing which three guys are the right ones.

    in reply to: the repeat topic: OL #17338
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I don’t see Fisher starting a rookie at center.

    in reply to: New England … praise and blame #17230
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Meanwhile, on Dallas Sports Radio 1310, former Super Bowl champion quarterback Troy Aikman simply said, “For the balls to be deflated, that doesn’t happen unless the quarterback wants that to happen, I can assure you of that.”

    That statement rings forcefully true to me.

    I hadn’t given this much thought. But Aikman is right. It’s inconceivable that Brady didn’t know.

    in reply to: happy birthday Ramsmaineiac #17141
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Happy Birthday, RM.

    I bought you a little token gift, but the stupid thing accidentally got locked in a spare time capsule I had laying around. Shouldn’t be too too long before you get it; the capsule is set to open the very second the Rams next qualify for a playoff game…

    Pssst, one more thing. Not trying to be critical or nothin, but those footballs on the side of the cake that ZN baked you look a little DE-FLAY-TED, don’t they?

    You should register a complaint.

    And that first cake…clearly a holiday cake. And when’s the last time the Rams played a game that meant anything in December? It’s almost as if zn is taunting RM.

    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    So if his contract is up in a week why the hell not just let him interview?

    If I’m Chud, I look at the Colts and think–“Well screw you.”

    It’s sort of pointless.

    It tells him that they really want him to stay. That’s all it does, but it does it powerfully.

    in reply to: happy birthday Ramsmaineiac #17102
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I was going to be the first one to wish you a happy birthday, but the traffic was bad, and my alarm clock didn’t go off.

    in reply to: Super Bowl build-up #17099
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I do really like Richard Sherman. I can’t help it. He’s got game, and while he talks trash, for the most part it’s pretty smart trash.

    He’s my favorite non-Ram, I think. Though, come to think of it, I don’t think there is another player on that particular list.

    in reply to: New England … praise and blame #16956
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    It’s easy to have a record like that when you have 3 weakling teams in your division

    No, it isn’t.

    It certainly helps. But that is quite a sustained run. They retooled repeatedly and stayed competitive. They did not sink to the level of their division. So maybe there are some seasons in there where their record looks better than they were, but that is a damn impressive run.

    in reply to: New England … praise and blame #16933
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    How do you go about investigating a claim like that?

    Too late to investigate the balls. So…you just ask them if they cheated or not?

    in reply to: Seattle doing nothing so far (he said in the 1st half) #16828
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Seattle had no business winning that game. 5 turnovers? An onside kick? A Hail Mary 2-point conversion?

    I don’t like it. That wasn’t a quality win.

    Oh, well.

    Go Indy, and if that fails, go ‘Hawks.

    in reply to: who the free agents will be #16805
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    If they bring Wells back i will
    seriously question their intelligence.

    w
    v

    If they bring Wells back, they should cut Jones. Because if Jones can’t perform better than Wells….

    The only reason I remain uncertain on Wells (and I’d like him gone) is that the Rams may think he’s likely to be healthier next year, and worth keeping. Clearly if the decision is based on his performance, there’s got to be a better option. Wagoner mentioned Hudson, and he’s 26. That’s the kind of guy I’d like. Someone who can be the C for 8 – 10 years.

    in reply to: who the free agents will be #16800
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I take it for granted that Long is gone, but I don’t expect a lot of FA action with the Rams. I wouldn’t be surprised if they picked up a G or C, but I think I would be surprised if they got both. I think Bradford and Langford are back. I dunno on Wells. Clearly, the Rams don’t think they have anybody as good as a bashed up and mangled Scott Wells, or Wells would have sat last year. So unless they sign a FA there, Wells is back.

    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Has not mattered for 20 years so no it doesn’t matter now.

    For the last 20 years, there has been no decision to make.

    There is now.

    in reply to: Predicting the 2 championship game winners #16761
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I think it will be Seattle and New England.

    Which isn’t what I am hoping for.

    I would prefer the Rams against the Raiders.

    But I don’t see that as a realistic possibility at this point.

    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I don’t know what this is worth.

    But I think the most glorious outcome right now for the NFL is Kroenke’s stadium. Of all the outcomes I look at right now, Kroenke’s is the sexiest.

    Does that matter?

    Well…it might.

    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Winnbrad wrote:</div>
    So it seems what Stan needs to do is convince 31 rich white guys, and the Green Bay Packers, that he isn’t a “rogue agent”.

    24 rich white guys, not 31.

    w
    v

    23 because he’s already one.

    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    also the tv revenue. is that one year or indefinite?

    I am sure that would end up going to court and eventually being negotiated. Nobody knows what the league would do if Stan went rogue, not even the league. Grubman said nobody is thinking about that right now, and I believe him. Why would you spend energy on that when it’s a remote possibility at this point?

    I don’t think Kroenke is going to go rogue, either. I’ve said all along I don’t think it’s in his nature, judging by his history; moreover, Grubman confirmed that the league knew in advance of the LA project Kroenke announced.

    Really, now that the NFL has spoken, it appears to me that the whole process is being measured carefully, and nothing is certain yet…except that there WILL be a team in Los Angeles soon, probably 2016.

    There are now three viable stadium plans for Los Angeles. (I am calling Kroenke’s plan viable a bit prematurely. It has not yet been sanctioned politically/environmentally, but I think it’s pretty safe to assume it will be). The holdup on the other two stadiums is that the investors involved in those projects want to be in ownership of the tenant. If I have my facts straight, one of the projects wants to own the team, and the other would be willing to own a mere 35% of the team. So far no team has made itself available.

    That could change.

    I have no idea what Davis is thinking in Oakland, but it is clear that Spanos wants LA. With Kroenke making a strong move, Spanos has now got to come up with a plan a little more proactive than simply throwing a hissy fit and rallying a few owners to vote No on the Rams. He may be able to delay things a bit, but I don’t think that he can hold up the Rams indefinitely without a viable alternative plan for re-colonizing Los Angeles. Would he sell 35% of the Chargers? Or negotiate something like that…25% or something? He now has pressure to make a deal; so do the stadium consortiums. They have to get something done soon, or their plans go up in flames. The clock is now ticking on everybody with an interest in Los Angeles.

    And should Spanos be willing to sell part of the Chargers, he could jump ahead of Kroenke in the timeline because the other two stadiums in question are already approved and could start building tomorrow, afaik.

    I did not know, btw, that 1/4 of the Chargers’ season tickets are from LA. If that is true, Spanos’ case for rights to LA is a bit stronger than I previously thought it was.

    in reply to: Jim Tomsula new 49ers HC #16726
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    3 years of slow, soul-degrading decline sounds good to me.

    Especially if the cupboards are completely bare, and the 9ers are in salary cap hell at the end of 2017.

    Works for me.

    in reply to: Brian Quick: Kenny Britt's presence meant a lot – Video #16720
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I think i would rather learn the secret
    to making good cornbread.

    w
    v

    I can give you my grandmother’s recipe if you want.

    in reply to: Pat Summerall and John Madden #16719
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Summerall and Madden were the best.

    Summerall went a coupla years too long.

    in reply to: Miklasz: Rams' standards are too low #16583
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    That 11-5 record – (11-6 if one counts the playoffs) – was sitting at 8-1 when they first started their backup QB. So from that point on, the Cards went 3-4… (3-5 if you count the loss to the 7-9 Panthers in the playoffs).

    Oh, and, btw.

    If one counts the post-Carson Palmer record at 3-5… and I do… just take note of the fact that 3-5 x 2 = 6-10. Exactly Fisher’s record without Sam Bradford.

    in reply to: Miklasz: Rams' standards are too low #16579
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    See, for me, the focus here isn’t on Bernie. I am not really interested in the question of whether this is Good or Bad Bernie.

    The excerpts above express my observations and conclusions about the team pretty well. I think Bernie is telling the truth about a generally inept organization that has yet to turn things around.

    How the coaching staff can claim progress after the past season just astonishes me.

    And, at the risk of offending people I consider my friends, I’ll just say that I am bewildered by the fact that Bernie’s comments generate more grousing about Bernie than agreement that the Rams have not yet achieved anything in more than a decade.

    Making claims to some nebulous level of improvement in talent level does not constitute growth in a league in which achievement is based on the results of a small number of games. You have to show that you can win, Baby. You have only 16 shots at doing it. Each game is precious, with immense pressure on the Win or Loss result. And the Rams have egregiously failed at that competitive challenge for 11 years.

    It’s time that they were called on it. Bernie has done so. If you read closely, JT is doing it, too. The Rams standards are so low that a 6-10 season following a 7-9 season can be publicly described by the team leadership as improvement. That ought to be universally seen as appalling.

    In my opinion, of course.

    Who is claiming Bernie is wrong?

    Speaking for myself, my complaint was that there was nothing new in there. No fresh insights. He’s said the same thing before. The difference is that this time he’s let his pissiness about the LA stadium seep into his perceptive analysis that the Rams’ record is still a losing record.

    Meanwhile…since you brought it up…most of us find the Bradford injuries to be significant contributors to the Rams’ record, making it worse than it would have been. In other words, the team IS getting more talented even if the record isn’t improving. And it’s not like anybody is HAPPY with 6-10. We just don’t think that’s the whole story. You and Bernie can bottom line it if you want. Some of us think we have reason to optimistic that the team is close to playoff caliber if only it had a competent QB.

    And…Bernie says this:

    If Arizona coach Bruce Arians can lead the Cardinals to an 11-5 record with a roster torn by injuries, and with considerable turmoil at the quarterback position, then the Rams’ 6-10 record should be deemed unacceptable.

    That 11-5 record – (11-6 if one counts the playoffs) – was sitting at 8-1 when they first started their backup QB. So from that point on, the Cards went 3-4… (3-5 if you count the loss to the 7-9 Panthers in the playoffs).

    So…sorry if I’m not buying the crap Bernie is peddling with that particular argument. Turns out the genius Arians wasn’t all that good without Carson Palmer. And that was with a veteran team that had already gelled together.

Viewing 30 posts - 7,651 through 7,680 (of 7,900 total)