Some Balzer (discussion)

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

Anonymous

Guest
Some Howard Balzer

All posts originally from the Rampagers Listserve. Edited/formatted by zn.

what is hardly mentioned is that martz inherited vermiel's team and if you look at those drafts from 97-99 and see all the players that the rams signed and kept which were integral parts of the championship team, then it's easy to see that after vermiel left, the rams made horrible personnel decisions. it is well know that the person who was pulling the trigger on the rams drafts was mike martz.

BALZER: Martz made some personnel mistakes. However, to pin it all on him is ignoring other things that happened.

*Management saying they couldn't afford to sign London Fletcher.

*Management saying safeties shouldn't be high draft picks, so Jimmy Kennedy was selected instead of Troy Polamalu.

*Letting Grant Wistrom leave because of a $500,000-$1M difference in a signing bonus

Those are a couple that immediately come to mind. In addition, Martz wanted the club to hire a pro personnel director and they wouldn't. He did take some flyers on some guys (Crouch, Travis Scott) that didn't work. However, most of the later-round picks are done by the scouting department. Very rarely does a head coach have much say over those picks. There were also numerous good picks.

Whatever he did doesn't come close to the horrors of the drafts with Linehan/Zygmunt. That's more the reason than any why the team is where it is now. Look at successful teams and you will see players in that 5-8 experience range that came in the draft. But the Rams have hardly any of them (Jackson, Bartell). The 2006 and 2007 drafts were brutal for the Rams, especially '06 when they had five picks in the first three rounds and none are with the team. Only Dominique Byrd is even in the league, only because he was signed this week by the Redskins. But he has done nothing in the league.

offensive line intact in that game and the eagles knocked the snot out of bradford. eagles completing passes all over the field with both starting cornerbacks even before ron bartell went down in the 4th quarter. howard are making excuses for this guy.

BALZER: he Eagles completed passes all over the field? How many passes do you think they completed in that game? It was a whopping 14 of 32, less than 50 percent for an explosive 187 yards. Bradford was sacked four times, once in the first half, and more came when the Rams fell behind and had to pass more. That he had the snot knocked out of him is simply an exaggeration.

The bottom line to this main debate is that to ignore and dismiss injuries as also a factor is being blind, closed-minded or whatever word it is. Look at the Rams o-line from 1999-2001. Seven missed starts in three years and not many injuries at other positions. Dick Vermeil, on numerous occasions, has talked about how healthy that 1999 team was. Then, in 2002, there were numerous injuries, including on the line, and the Rams were 7-9. The next year they shored up the line, no one missed a start, there were fewer injuries elsewhere, and they were 12-4. Coincidence?

I have asked the question twice now, and you have refused to answer, so I get it that you just can't bring yourself to even acknowledge that injuries are a factor when a team loses, and a big help when a team stays healthy. Not just the Rams, but most teams. There can be exceptions, but generally the teams that stay healthiest do better. Most people that watch the game realize that it's a part of it.

I know the Packers from last year are usually seen as an exception, but the reality is they won one less game last season than the year before, they didn't win their division, lost to Detroit 7-3 in the 13th game of the season and were fortunate to get in the playoffs. They then got on a nice roll and won the Super Bowl. This year, they have been remarkably healthy, and they are undefeated. Again, is that coincidence?

Lovie Smith didn't make excuses about his quarterback situation. Of course, no one could ever say the Bears have been affected by losing their starting quarterback. After all, that would just be an excuse.

lovie smith has taken his team to 2 nfc championships, a superbowl, won divisions, and has his team ready to play each and every week despite injuries

BALZER: Curious what Lovie Smith's past has to do with the point I made. It's irrelevant to what they have experienced, losing Cutler and Forte. But those are excuses for what their offense has done, right?

Do you believe that injuries have any impact at all to what happens with NFL teams? Love to hear your answer.

the point made was that Lovie Smith has shown an ability to win as a NFL HC while Spags certainly hasn’t. Spags can’t coach a team that is even remotely competitive against good opponents. Part of that is the glaring lack of talent and injuries, but he’s not winning anyone over with his own HC abilities either.

BALZER: But the point about Lovie Smith had nothing to do with what he has achieved. I merely brought up the Bears because they were the first team that came to mind in regards to losing their quarterback. I figured that those that want to dismiss injuries must believe the Bears have been poorly coached the last couple games because mentioning the loss of Cutler and then Forte must only be an excuse. The debate wasn't about Spagnuolo vs. Smith. It was about the recurring comments by some that citing injuries is just an excuse and shouldn't be even considered as part of the reason why a team plays poorly.

Listen to any national analyst, including a guy like Tim Ryan who has done several Rams games, and they talk about the difficulty the Rams have faced with injuries. Is Tim Ryan an excuse-maker or just a former player who observes and provides his analysis?

The rams are really still paying the price of the bad personnel evaluations prior to Devaney and Spagnuolo taking control. Most winning organizations have a core of their own players with 4-8 years of experience. The Rams have hardly any of those, and are trying to win with a roster essentially built over three seasons with little help from what was there before.

The only reason Linehan has a better record is because he took over a better team that had Jackson, Bulger, Bruce, Holt and Pace, to name a few. Bulger passed for over 4,000 yards, Jackson led the league in yards from scrimmage, Holt and Bruce went over 1,000 yards, and they went 8-8.

you always make excuses for the rams and that is the way that it is. fans see the truth and know the truth.

BALZER: Fans know the truth. And there are numerous fans that understand that injuries are a factor. Not an excuse; just a part of the explanation of what has happened to this team.

But, generally, I'll ask this simple question. It goes beyond the Rams, and applies to the NFL. Let's see if you can give a straight answer: Do you believe injuries, or lack of injuries, have no impact on a team's performance. Yes, or no.

Injuries are part of it.The Rams were 7-9 last year. They have been trying to build the roster. A team that is average to begin with will be affected by numerous injuries than a team that is already good.

.ask the defending superbowl champs with 15 players on injured reserve last season how they overcame injuries?

BALZER: I checked Green Bay and San Francisco this morning, the two teams with the best record in the league, and they each have one notable player on IR. That's right ... one. As for the Packers last year, the 15 injuries were overstated. Many of those guys weren't top contributors. In fact, of the 15, only five are on the current team! But, they were a 10-6 team that almost didn't make the playoffs. This year, they have been extremely healthy, and they are a better team than last year.

Look at the Rams from 1999-2001. Very few injuries, especially on the offensive line. After Warner took over and the season started, no one missed any games once the season started except Tom Nutten, who missed two. That's it. On the entire offense, there were two missed games the entire season. Plus, they had all of the offseason to learn the system, and the one aspect you are incorrect on, is the system was reduced when Warner took over.Play fell off in some subsequent years for a variety of reasons, but there were also more injuries. I charted the offensive line injuries from 1999 through 2010, and it's startling the difference in performance of the team when the Rams were healthy on the line and when they weren't.

Do you believe 3 years is a good number to evaluate at? How do you feel on
starting over after 3 years?


BALZER: Look at teams like the Steelers have a consistent player development/evaluation program that is always selecting players that fit. And when Tomlin came in, he stayed with the defensive system that was there.

The timing has been bad for the Rams in this "rebuild," because the second year, the free agency rules changed and then this year was the lockout. The two years they had the No. 2 pick, the draft simply wasn't that strong at the top. It sure looked like things were improving entering this season, but then the team's two most productive offensive players are injured in the opener, and carnage hits the secondary. They compete for a half, but then don't have enough to stay with better teams. Three years can be enough to evaluate, but it makes it difficult when things happen out of your control.

your whole theory on offensive line stability is neat, however all one has to do is too look at the steelers last season, who lost starters all over the line and had to resort to backups throughout the season yet went to the superbowl to refute his theory.

injuries are just an excuse.


BALZER: Offense is mostly about continuity and timing. When the pieces are constantly changing, it's difficult to have consistency. They have had flashes of good offensive play and games where the offense moved the ball, but couldn't score.

Jackson goes out on the first play of the opener, and then Amendola was lost. He was Bradford's key checkdown/short yardage outlet guy, and his replacement was Salas, who struggled in the game against the Giants, but he started coming on in that role and actually has a better average per catch than Amendola. Then he got hurt. Yes, the line struggled, but they did a good job run blocking, but early games got so out of hand that the pass rush was a jail break, and the line couldn't hold up.

I do agree there have been coaching issues, no question. But a good amount of them were created by the ever-changing cast. Lloyd arrives and plays with two quarterbacks in his first four games. Alexander becomes a starter, is averaging over 18 yards a catch, and he gets hurt.

But, always, it's never one thing, whether a teams wins or loses. What always amazes me are those that just want to dismiss injuries as a factor. Ask anyone in the NFL or understands the NFL, and they will all agree that offensive line stability is very important in having a consistent offense. It's not a "theory" that you imply I invented.

But, the real funny part is that you are wrong in your assessment of the Steelers. They had three players on the line that started all but one game. At left tackle, they lost Max Starks, and a backup, Jonathan Scott started the last eight games and the playoffs. At right guard, Ramon Foster started the last eight games and the playoffs. So, the reality and the facts, are that the same line started the entire second half of the season and the playoffs. That's quite a bit different than your off-base claim that they lost starters all over the line.

The other reality, obviously, is the Steelers are a much better team than the Rams. better teams can withstand injuries better. That's fairly obvious.

spags had pictures removed at the facility, including the one of ricky proehl in the nfc championship game against tampa bay.

BALZER: The only photos taken down of past Rams was in the team meeting room. There are photos of past Rams in many other parts of the building. There are numerous pictures at the facility of past Rams.

the rams need to go with an experienced head coach who has a winning background and pedigree, the rams need to go with an experienced head coach who has a winning background and pedigree, preferably in the nfl. enough of offensive/defensive coordinators and rising stars. linehan was a "rising star" and so was spags.

BALZER: And so was Mike Tomlin and Tony Dungy and Mike McCarthy and John Harbaugh and Lovie Smith and Rex Ryan and ... the list goes on and on. Plus, every one of the experienced guys that people want was a first-time coach at one point. What have the Redskins done with the winning coaches they hired? Currently, 24 teams in the NFL are coached by first-time head coaches. Thirteen have winning records. Of the eight other teams, four currently have winning records.

I would love to see Chucky (Gruden), but doubt we'd be able to get him

BALZER: Check out Gruden's record after the Super Bowl year.
 

brokeu91

The super shrink
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
5,546
Name
Michael
I tend to agree with Balzer on most of those points. It's definitely true that injuries played a huge roll in this teams downfall. The o-line and CBs are really beat up and are integral to the offense and Spags defense (though I don't really think the defense has been the problem). Spag's ability to adapt his defense after the injuries at CB is actually remarkable. His defense needs big CBs that can jam and guys who can get at the QB. They still have two DEs that can get at the QB (knock on wood), but they don't have the CBs anymore. Yet, the D is still getting it done.

But there are a couple of things that he's not bringing up that, and truth be told, I'm not sure the first one is anyone's fault. But why do the Rams seem to have so many injuries to key players every year? I know all teams have injuries, but since the 2004 season, it just seems ridiculous with the amount and at key positions for the Rams. Are we drafting injury prone guys (eg Illinois Mike, J. Smith)? Are we relying on injury-prone guys too much? Billy wanted a "big", "strong" and "tough" team, but did we really get it?

The other is lack of play makers/explosive players. Everyone sees this. I know Spags want's a ball control offense, but it's not working. Yeah, we drafted WR who can block, but they can't run. They might be able to screen using their body, but they are not getting open enough. Without those speed guys all you need to do is rush the passer with five and clog up every passing lane. If you can't stretch the field and they can keep all 11 players within 15 yards of the line of scrimmage, then it's hard to get players open. And you have to have guys who can make plays on offense: get YAC, get open consistently, make a guy miss and then run for another 10-20 yards, guys who if given a bit of open space can take it to the house, etc.

We rely too much on long, slow methodical drives. Once a bad play happens (e.g. a negative run, a penalty, a sack, etc) then we're screwed. The offense was built to go 4-6 yards per play, without any mistakes, it works. Before all of the injuries the Rams seem to drive fairly well, but then when they get to the red zone and when you need to be quick and make plays, the offense stalls. If you got someone who's explosive, you don't ALWAYS need to be perfect on every play. Sometimes you can take a sack and still keep a drive going. But without those players, it all falls flat.

Is this Billy's fault? Not really. Spags wanted a ball control offense, and that's what he got. I think Billy drafted very well for the type of personnel that Spags wanted. But the team isn't perfect/it makes mistakes, it doesn't get the benefit of doubt by the refs and so the drives tend to stall before reaching the end zone. The only cure for this is to get playmakers (and open up the offense more) or get players who do what they do perfectly and don't make mistakes/take penalties. Right now we don't have either due to injuries, youth, lack of experience at key positions, and lack of explosive playmakers.

Should we open up the offense/change strategies? Maybe, maybe not. When healthy the defense that Spags built will likely be much better at stopping the pass than the run. If we're up by 10 or more points, then we could be golden. C Long, Quinn, Hall and company could pin back their ears, go for the passer. But right now we don't have the offense for it. And if we continue to play a methodical, ball control offense then we'll never get the lead and let Spags defense do what it does best. That being said, I'm not sure we have the players to switch to a less ball controlled, more gambling style offense. The O-line is in shambles, and I'm not entirely sure it would be that good if it were healthy, and we don't have enough speed at WR to run any stretch plays. These are things that can only get fixed by drafting for those types of players. But if Billy and Spags continue on their path they are now, they never will draft, trade for, or try to sign those guys. And if they did, I don't believe we have the coaching staff to coach that up/implement that strategy.

In the end, I'm not sure what to do. I'm glad I'm not in charge.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
Whatever he did doesn't come close to the horrors of the drafts with Linehan/Zygmunt. That's more the reason than any why the team is where it is now. Look at successful teams and you will see players in that 5-8 experience range that came in the draft. But the Rams have hardly any of them (Jackson, Bartell). The 2006 and 2007 drafts were brutal for the Rams, especially '06 when they had five picks in the first three rounds and none are with the team. Only Dominique Byrd is even in the league, only because he was signed this week by the Redskins. But he has done nothing in the league.

THANK YOU.

And that obviously set the stage for the rebuild. Which, you know, all teams do. All teams rebuild the roster with an absence of depth and a releasing of the veterans who could no longer play up to their contracts. Happens all the time. Then all teams suffer insurmountable injuries the first year (QB, WR) and it shows in the record (2009). Then all teams improve in year two and go so far as to compete with the upper echelon teams by fielding a shit load of rookies and 2nd year players (2010). Difference being, every other team wins the SB in year 2 of a rebuild. Then, of course, all teams deal with a loss of all starting corners (and 6 backups), 4 wide receivers, what is it now, 5 tackles?, the starting RB for a handful of games, the starting QB for a handful of games, the starting TE, make almost 70 roster moves since the start of the season, etc. All teams go through that in year 3 and still stay highly competitive. Look at the Lions. They lost all those guys too - including CJ. And they hired McDaniels before a lockout and fired their OC of 3 years (Linehan). Yep. That happened. It's not in the news though, so just take my word for it.

I don't know why I'm doing this again. Someone just shoot me and put me out of my misery.
 

Anonymous

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
X said:
Whatever he did doesn't come close to the horrors of the drafts with Linehan/Zygmunt. That's more the reason than any why the team is where it is now. Look at successful teams and you will see players in that 5-8 experience range that came in the draft. But the Rams have hardly any of them (Jackson, Bartell). The 2006 and 2007 drafts were brutal for the Rams, especially '06 when they had five picks in the first three rounds and none are with the team. Only Dominique Byrd is even in the league, only because he was signed this week by the Redskins. But he has done nothing in the league.

THANK YOU.

And that obviously set the stage for the rebuild. Which, you know, all teams do. All teams rebuild the roster with an absence of depth and a releasing of the veterans who could no longer play up to their contracts. Happens all the time. Then all teams suffer insurmountable injuries the first year (QB, WR) and it shows in the record (2009). Then all teams improve in year two and go so far as to compete with the upper echelon teams by fielding a shyte load of rookies and 2nd year players (2010). Difference being, every other team wins the SB in year 2 of a rebuild. Then, of course, all teams deal with a loss of all starting corners (and 6 backups), 4 wide receivers, what is it now, 5 tackles?, the starting RB for a handful of games, the starting QB for a handful of games, the starting TE, make almost 70 roster moves since the start of the season, etc. All teams go through that in year 3 and still stay highly competitive. Look at the Lions. They lost all those guys too - including CJ. And they hired McDaniels before a lockout and fired their OC of 3 years (Linehan). Yep. That happened. It's not in the news though, so just take my word for it.
.

That bit about the 5-8 year veteran is CRUCIAL. As you know.

I have often challenged people to name a team that started from scratch and was rebuilt in 3 years.

Every example I got in response, actually, it always turned out the team in question had a stock of 5-8 year veteran talent, unlike the Rams in 2009. In fact the reason the examples were offered in the first place is because the poster didn't double-check the roster and how much veteran talent the new regime inherited.

Ignoring that is like ignoring Pearl Harbor when asked why the USA entered WW 2.

"Why did the USA enter WW 2?"

"Just cuzz."
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
zn said:
X said:
Whatever he did doesn't come close to the horrors of the drafts with Linehan/Zygmunt. That's more the reason than any why the team is where it is now. Look at successful teams and you will see players in that 5-8 experience range that came in the draft. But the Rams have hardly any of them (Jackson, Bartell). The 2006 and 2007 drafts were brutal for the Rams, especially '06 when they had five picks in the first three rounds and none are with the team. Only Dominique Byrd is even in the league, only because he was signed this week by the Redskins. But he has done nothing in the league.

THANK YOU.

And that obviously set the stage for the rebuild. Which, you know, all teams do. All teams rebuild the roster with an absence of depth and a releasing of the veterans who could no longer play up to their contracts. Happens all the time. Then all teams suffer insurmountable injuries the first year (QB, WR) and it shows in the record (2009). Then all teams improve in year two and go so far as to compete with the upper echelon teams by fielding a shyte load of rookies and 2nd year players (2010). Difference being, every other team wins the SB in year 2 of a rebuild. Then, of course, all teams deal with a loss of all starting corners (and 6 backups), 4 wide receivers, what is it now, 5 tackles?, the starting RB for a handful of games, the starting QB for a handful of games, the starting TE, make almost 70 roster moves since the start of the season, etc. All teams go through that in year 3 and still stay highly competitive. Look at the Lions. They lost all those guys too - including CJ. And they hired McDaniels before a lockout and fired their OC of 3 years (Linehan). Yep. That happened. It's not in the news though, so just take my word for it.
.

That bit about the 5-8 year veteran is CRUCIAL. As you know.

I have often challenged people to name a team that started from scratch and was rebuilt in 3 years.

Every example I got in response, actually, it always turned out the team in question had a stock of 5-8 year veteran talent, unlike the Rams in 2009. In fact the reason the examples were offered in the first place is because the poster didn't double-check the roster and how much veteran talent the new regime inherited.

Ignoring that is like ignoring Pearl Harbor when asked why the USA entered WW 2.

"Why did the USA enter WW 2?"

"Just cuzz."
That's crucial, yeah, but it's far from the end of the story too. People can name teams that "started over", but not only do they have fairly good drafts for a few years prior, but they also don't have the same sets of circumstances as the Rams had in subsequent years. And the arguments/debates that spawn from those attempts to draw parallels are ridiculous. It becomes, after a while, player comparisons, injury reports (coupled with in-depth player analyses to compare the negative impact of losing said players) and hindsight drafting.

It just is what it is here. Everyone knows what happened, everyone has different opinions as to WHY those things happened, and everyone has different levels of patience and expectations. The latter is what causes a lot of strife. People with more patience tend to get labeled apologists, and people with less patience tend to get labeled as bashers. Of course there are more *elements* to it than that, but that's the bulk of the problems in Rams Nation. That, and how you define the word "realistic." That's another big source of strife.
 

brokeu91

The super shrink
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
5,546
Name
Michael
X said:
zn said:
X said:
Whatever he did doesn't come close to the horrors of the drafts with Linehan/Zygmunt. That's more the reason than any why the team is where it is now. Look at successful teams and you will see players in that 5-8 experience range that came in the draft. But the Rams have hardly any of them (Jackson, Bartell). The 2006 and 2007 drafts were brutal for the Rams, especially '06 when they had five picks in the first three rounds and none are with the team. Only Dominique Byrd is even in the league, only because he was signed this week by the Redskins. But he has done nothing in the league.

THANK YOU.

And that obviously set the stage for the rebuild. Which, you know, all teams do. All teams rebuild the roster with an absence of depth and a releasing of the veterans who could no longer play up to their contracts. Happens all the time. Then all teams suffer insurmountable injuries the first year (QB, WR) and it shows in the record (2009). Then all teams improve in year two and go so far as to compete with the upper echelon teams by fielding a shyte load of rookies and 2nd year players (2010). Difference being, every other team wins the SB in year 2 of a rebuild. Then, of course, all teams deal with a loss of all starting corners (and 6 backups), 4 wide receivers, what is it now, 5 tackles?, the starting RB for a handful of games, the starting QB for a handful of games, the starting TE, make almost 70 roster moves since the start of the season, etc. All teams go through that in year 3 and still stay highly competitive. Look at the Lions. They lost all those guys too - including CJ. And they hired McDaniels before a lockout and fired their OC of 3 years (Linehan). Yep. That happened. It's not in the news though, so just take my word for it.
.

That bit about the 5-8 year veteran is CRUCIAL. As you know.

I have often challenged people to name a team that started from scratch and was rebuilt in 3 years.

Every example I got in response, actually, it always turned out the team in question had a stock of 5-8 year veteran talent, unlike the Rams in 2009. In fact the reason the examples were offered in the first place is because the poster didn't double-check the roster and how much veteran talent the new regime inherited.

Ignoring that is like ignoring Pearl Harbor when asked why the USA entered WW 2.

"Why did the USA enter WW 2?"

"Just cuzz."
That's crucial, yeah, but it's far from the end of the story too. People can name teams that "started over", but not only do they have fairly good drafts for a few years prior, but they also don't have the same sets of circumstances as the Rams had in subsequent years. And the arguments/debates that spawn from those attempts to draw parallels are ridiculous. It becomes, after a while, player comparisons, injury reports (coupled with in-depth player analyses to compare the negative impact of losing said players) and hindsight drafting.

It just is what it is here. Everyone knows what happened, everyone has different opinions as to WHY those things happened, and everyone has different levels of patience and expectations. The latter is what causes a lot of strife. People with more patience tend to get labeled apologists, and people with less patience tend to get labeled as bashers. Of course there are more *elements* to it than that, but that's the bulk of the problems in Rams Nation. That, and how you define the word "realistic." That's another big source of strife.
Yes, everyone knows what happened. I, for one, have more patience then say most of the posters on Ramstalk, and change for the sake of change almost never works, but I still would like to see something change...Things that we ALL know need to be improved. For instance, we need to hire a QB coach, a team president, and possibly a new O-line/WR coach. And I know you can't predict injuries, but we have so many players who have long histories of injury that we are relying on for key positions. Is this something Billy is doing wrong? Why do we have so many injuries and injury prone players? I admit sometimes it might be worth the possible injury because what they do when healthy (Dx, DA, maybe Illinois Mike), but others have never really contributed much (J Smith, Bell, etc).
 

Anonymous

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
X said:
zn said:
X said:
Whatever he did doesn't come close to the horrors of the drafts with Linehan/Zygmunt. That's more the reason than any why the team is where it is now. Look at successful teams and you will see players in that 5-8 experience range that came in the draft. But the Rams have hardly any of them (Jackson, Bartell). The 2006 and 2007 drafts were brutal for the Rams, especially '06 when they had five picks in the first three rounds and none are with the team. Only Dominique Byrd is even in the league, only because he was signed this week by the Redskins. But he has done nothing in the league.

THANK YOU.

And that obviously set the stage for the rebuild. Which, you know, all teams do. All teams rebuild the roster with an absence of depth and a releasing of the veterans who could no longer play up to their contracts. Happens all the time. Then all teams suffer insurmountable injuries the first year (QB, WR) and it shows in the record (2009). Then all teams improve in year two and go so far as to compete with the upper echelon teams by fielding a shyte load of rookies and 2nd year players (2010). Difference being, every other team wins the SB in year 2 of a rebuild. Then, of course, all teams deal with a loss of all starting corners (and 6 backups), 4 wide receivers, what is it now, 5 tackles?, the starting RB for a handful of games, the starting QB for a handful of games, the starting TE, make almost 70 roster moves since the start of the season, etc. All teams go through that in year 3 and still stay highly competitive. Look at the Lions. They lost all those guys too - including CJ. And they hired McDaniels before a lockout and fired their OC of 3 years (Linehan). Yep. That happened. It's not in the news though, so just take my word for it.
.

That bit about the 5-8 year veteran is CRUCIAL. As you know.

I have often challenged people to name a team that started from scratch and was rebuilt in 3 years.

Every example I got in response, actually, it always turned out the team in question had a stock of 5-8 year veteran talent, unlike the Rams in 2009. In fact the reason the examples were offered in the first place is because the poster didn't double-check the roster and how much veteran talent the new regime inherited.

Ignoring that is like ignoring Pearl Harbor when asked why the USA entered WW 2.

"Why did the USA enter WW 2?"

"Just cuzz."
That's crucial, yeah, but it's far from the end of the story too. People can name teams that "started over", but not only do they have fairly good drafts for a few years prior, but they also don't have the same sets of circumstances as the Rams had in subsequent years. And the arguments/debates that spawn from those attempts to draw parallels are ridiculous. It becomes, after a while, player comparisons, injury reports (coupled with in-depth player analyses to compare the negative impact of losing said players) and hindsight drafting.

It just is what it is here. Everyone knows what happened, everyone has different opinions as to WHY those things happened, and everyone has different levels of patience and expectations. The latter is what causes a lot of strife. People with more patience tend to get labeled apologists, and people with less patience tend to get labeled as bashers. Of course there are more *elements* to it than that, but that's the bulk of the problems in Rams Nation. That, and how you define the word "realistic." That's another big source of strife.

It's still crucial and it's not relative. Balzer is right. Teams that play well have a critical mass of 5-8 year vets. That's demonstrable. You don't get those from scratch in 3 years when you start with next to nothing. Meanwhile it is true according to all my experience discussing this that any time someone tried to name a team that was up and built in 3 years, they ALWAYS neglect the inherited veteran talent.

And yes they would have done better if not for injuries and also if not for a "why can't they run my offense the way I want" offensive coordinator who was not used to coaching a young offense and never adjusted to his actual players (or if he did he didn't do a good job).

The key point here is the claim that "3 years is enough" turns out to be false. No, it wasn't enough, not unless they inherited more veteran talent.

The injuries of course just demolished any chance they did have.
 

Angry Ram

Captain RAmerica Original Rammer
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
18,000
brokeu91 said:
X said:
zn said:
X said:
Whatever he did doesn't come close to the horrors of the drafts with Linehan/Zygmunt. That's more the reason than any why the team is where it is now. Look at successful teams and you will see players in that 5-8 experience range that came in the draft. But the Rams have hardly any of them (Jackson, Bartell). The 2006 and 2007 drafts were brutal for the Rams, especially '06 when they had five picks in the first three rounds and none are with the team. Only Dominique Byrd is even in the league, only because he was signed this week by the Redskins. But he has done nothing in the league.

THANK YOU.

And that obviously set the stage for the rebuild. Which, you know, all teams do. All teams rebuild the roster with an absence of depth and a releasing of the veterans who could no longer play up to their contracts. Happens all the time. Then all teams suffer insurmountable injuries the first year (QB, WR) and it shows in the record (2009). Then all teams improve in year two and go so far as to compete with the upper echelon teams by fielding a shyte load of rookies and 2nd year players (2010). Difference being, every other team wins the SB in year 2 of a rebuild. Then, of course, all teams deal with a loss of all starting corners (and 6 backups), 4 wide receivers, what is it now, 5 tackles?, the starting RB for a handful of games, the starting QB for a handful of games, the starting TE, make almost 70 roster moves since the start of the season, etc. All teams go through that in year 3 and still stay highly competitive. Look at the Lions. They lost all those guys too - including CJ. And they hired McDaniels before a lockout and fired their OC of 3 years (Linehan). Yep. That happened. It's not in the news though, so just take my word for it.
.

That bit about the 5-8 year veteran is CRUCIAL. As you know.

I have often challenged people to name a team that started from scratch and was rebuilt in 3 years.

Every example I got in response, actually, it always turned out the team in question had a stock of 5-8 year veteran talent, unlike the Rams in 2009. In fact the reason the examples were offered in the first place is because the poster didn't double-check the roster and how much veteran talent the new regime inherited.

Ignoring that is like ignoring Pearl Harbor when asked why the USA entered WW 2.

"Why did the USA enter WW 2?"

"Just cuzz."
That's crucial, yeah, but it's far from the end of the story too. People can name teams that "started over", but not only do they have fairly good drafts for a few years prior, but they also don't have the same sets of circumstances as the Rams had in subsequent years. And the arguments/debates that spawn from those attempts to draw parallels are ridiculous. It becomes, after a while, player comparisons, injury reports (coupled with in-depth player analyses to compare the negative impact of losing said players) and hindsight drafting.

It just is what it is here. Everyone knows what happened, everyone has different opinions as to WHY those things happened, and everyone has different levels of patience and expectations. The latter is what causes a lot of strife. People with more patience tend to get labeled apologists, and people with less patience tend to get labeled as bashers. Of course there are more *elements* to it than that, but that's the bulk of the problems in Rams Nation. That, and how you define the word "realistic." That's another big source of strife.
Yes, everyone knows what happened. I, for one, have more patience then say most of the posters on Ramstalk, and change for the sake of change almost never works, but I still would like to see something change...Things that we ALL know need to be improved. For instance, we need to hire a QB coach, a team president, and possibly a new O-line/WR coach. And I know you can't predict injuries, but we have so many players who have long histories of injury that we are relying on for key positions. Is this something Billy is doing wrong? Why do we have so many injuries and injury prone players? I admit sometimes it might be worth the possible injury because what they do when healthy (Dx, DA, maybe Illinois Mike), but others have never really contributed much (J Smith, Bell, etc).

Jason Smith never had major injury problems @ Baylor. You can't predict concussions since they can happen anytime and different players react differently.

Bell isn't injury prone. Big Mike was selected in the 5th round for that reason.

Amendola? Nah. As a PR/KR and the leading catcher...I think he held up pretty well. You can't say he's injury prone b/c of how he tried to brace himself falling.

Saffold? Full 16 game starter last year. He tore his pec lifting weights. Dumb, unfortunate luck.

Bartell/Fletcher/Harris/Murphy, again..more dumb, unfortunate luck. Bartell was trying to make a play, Fletcher got his leg tangled up in practice, Murphy broke an ankle in camp, while Harris was making a play as well. It wasn't even his surgically reparied knee.

Clayton/Robinson were perefectly healthy when traded, but again it's more dumb luck than anything. It's cruel, really.

You know how much luck plays a part in it? I tore my ACL playing freakin frisbee. Yeah. I know. :nono:
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
zn said:
It's still crucial and it's not relative. Balzer is right. Teams that play well have a critical mass of 5-8 year vets. That's demonstrable. You don't get those from scratch in 3 years when you start with next to nothing. Meanwhile it is true according to all my experience discussing this that any time someone tried to name a team that was up and built in 3 years, they ALWAYS neglect the inherited veteran talent.
Yeah, I know. The Rams needed a lot of starters and a ton of depth after the house-cleaning was over. They basically had Barron, Jackson, Little, Atogwe, Incognito and Bartell as the veteran starters (guys THEY drafted) to go along with the guys they didn't draft, but had been around a couple/few years. Guys like Bulger, Goldberg, McMichael, Witherspoon, and James Hall. Wow. What a beast roster.

They had to cut Torry Holt, Pisa Tinoisamoa, Orlando Pace, Brett Romberg, Dane Looker, Antonio Pittman, Victor Adeyanju, La'Roi Glover, Quinton Culberson, Chris Draft, Fakhir Brown, Corey Chavous, Dante Hall, Derek Stanley, Tye Hill, Gary Stills, Eric Moore, Adam Carriker, Dan Kreider, Trent Green, Drew Bennett, Joe Klopfenstein, Anthony Becht, Eddie Kennison, (and eventually Wil Witherspoon), and those are just starters. Mostly because the previous regime signed them to ridiculous contracts or they were just stop-gaps or draftees who weren't very good to begin with. That's an entire team right there (25). All teams do that. Get rid of potentially 25 starters. Happens every year.

You may not have been around during this time, but I once listed the starters in Green Bay that have been there a while. Going back to 2001 and into 2007. Then I named all two of them for the Rams. And the only reason I even bothered to compare the Rams to Green Bay is because somebody mentioned their players on IR while going to the Superbowl. All 1 of their starters, by the way. At some point I'm probably going to stop arguing about it and just let it be. People are upset and rightfully so. People prepare for football season for several months, then it comes, and then it's over by week 10. That gets everybody pissed off. I understand that. I'm not dancing a jig about it either, but I do try to remain positive. Sue me.

So.... be pissed off. But don't try to tell me that a coach with an undemonstrative personality is the source of all that's evil while willfully neglecting everything else that happened. That always pins the bullshit meter for me. A complete roster change-over followed by a year of virtually no free agency, followed by a year with no off-season and tremendous injuries. Across the entire team. And it's the head coach's fault. Yeah. Okay then.

P.J. was right. Spagnuolo should have never taken this job. Only the really brave or foolhardy would even attempt to throw themselves into such an enormous undertaking. But, they did. Devaney and Spagnuolo both willfully took on the challenge. And for that, they get called incompetents or pussies. If people don't know why that pisses me off, maybe now you do. Cuz it's just so fuckin' easy, right? Piece of cake. And Mardy fucking Gilyard could have saved us all if we just *developed* him. FFS. Like I said. I'm probably going to have to leave it be at some point. I can't keep pointing this shit out if it keeps getting ignored in favor of picking goddamn nits. And I'm not pointing anyone out in particular here. I endure this on several sites.
 

JdashSTL

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
1,178
I understand why people will always bring up the Packers example from last year when it comes to injuries, but that really speaks to the depth that team has and tremendous work by the GM and coaching staff. It still doesnt mean any team can overcome injuries like they do. In the SB 2 years ago, werent the Saints and Colts pretty healthy? Look at a lot of the successful teams this year. They are healthy. If the Bears find a way to make the playoffs without Cutler and Forte then there coaching staff and GM deserve a TON of credit but they could easily fall short of the playoffs. Should people criticize them for not being able to overcome the injuries to their QB and RB and say that those injuries are an excuse should they not make the playoffs? They should be able to overcome key injuries just like the Texans are doing that right now? Maybe they will, maybe they wont. Injuries can be a FACTOR, not always looked at as an excuse.
 

Anonymous

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
JdashSTL said:
I understand why people will always bring up the Packers example from last year when it comes to injuries, but that really speaks to the depth that team has and tremendous work by the GM and coaching staff. It still doesnt mean any team can overcome injuries like they do. In the SB 2 years ago, werent the Saints and Colts pretty healthy? Look at a lot of the successful teams this year. They are healthy. If the Bears find a way to make the playoffs without Cutler and Forte then there coaching staff and GM deserve a TON of credit but they could easily fall short of the playoffs. Should people criticize them for not being able to overcome the injuries to their QB and RB and say that those injuries are an excuse should they not make the playoffs? They should be able to overcome key injuries just like the Texans are doing that right now? Maybe they will, maybe they wont. Injuries can be a FACTOR, not always looked at as an excuse.

And of course Thompson had been drafting for that team since 2005 and obviously inherited players from before then even.

Meanwhile, in contrast, in 2009 GB lost its 2 starting OTs for half the season. Without then they went 4-4. When they got them back they went 7-1.

So it depends on injuries to whom.

Plus as Balzer said, most of the "15 injured" from 2010 were JAGs.
 

Anonymous

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #12
X said:
zn said:
It's still crucial and it's not relative. Balzer is right. Teams that play well have a critical mass of 5-8 year vets. That's demonstrable. You don't get those from scratch in 3 years when you start with next to nothing. Meanwhile it is true according to all my experience discussing this that any time someone tried to name a team that was up and built in 3 years, they ALWAYS neglect the inherited veteran talent.
Yeah, I know. The Rams needed a lot of starters and a ton of depth after the house-cleaning was over. They basically had Barron, Jackson, Little, Atogwe, Incognito and Bartell as the veteran starters (guys THEY drafted) to go along with the guys they didn't draft, but had been around a couple/few years. Guys like Bulger, Goldberg, McMichael, Witherspoon, and James Hall. Wow. What a beast roster.

They had to cut Torry Holt, Pisa Tinoisamoa, Orlando Pace, Brett Romberg, Dane Looker, Antonio Pittman, Victor Adeyanju, La'Roi Glover, Quinton Culberson, Chris Draft, Fakhir Brown, Corey Chavous, Dante Hall, Derek Stanley, Tye Hill, Gary Stills, Eric Moore, Adam Carriker, Dan Kreider, Trent Green, Drew Bennett, Joe Klopfenstein, Anthony Becht, Eddie Kennison, (and eventually Wil Witherspoon), and those are just starters. Mostly because the previous regime signed them to ridiculous contracts or they were just stop-gaps or draftees who weren't very good to begin with. That's an entire team right there (25). All teams do that. Get rid of potentially 25 starters. Happens every year.

You may not have been around during this time, but I once listed the starters in Green Bay that have been there a while. Going back to 2001 and into 2007. Then I named all two of them for the Rams. And the only reason I even bothered to compare the Rams to Green Bay is because somebody mentioned their players on IR while going to the Superbowl. All 1 of their starters, by the way. At some point I'm probably going to stop arguing about it and just let it be. People are upset and rightfully so. People prepare for football season for several months, then it comes, and then it's over by week 10. That gets everybody pissed off. I understand that. I'm not dancing a jig about it either, but I do try to remain positive. Sue me.

So.... be pissed off. But don't try to tell me that a coach with an undemonstrative personality is the source of all that's evil while willfully neglecting everything else that happened. That always pins the BS meter for me. A complete roster change-over followed by a year of virtually no free agency, followed by a year with no off-season and tremendous injuries. Across the entire team. And it's the head coach's fault. Yeah. Okay then.

P.J. was right. Spagnuolo should have never taken this job. Only the really brave or foolhardy would even attempt to throw themselves into such an enormous undertaking. But, they did. Devaney and Spagnuolo both willfully took on the challenge. And for that, they get called incompetents or wussies. If people don't know why that pisses me off, maybe now you do. Cuz it's just so freakin' easy, right? Piece of cake. And Mardy freaking Gilyard could have saved us all if we just *developed* him. FFS. Like I said. I'm probably going to have to leave it be at some point. I can't keep pointing this shyte out if it keeps getting ignored in favor of picking goddamn nits. And I'm not pointing anyone out in particular here. I endure this on several sites.

Oh forget about all that.

Just enjoy watching them kick some Seattle ass.

:mrgreen:

QB Sam Bradford gets back on practice field for Rams after ankle sprain

Associated Press
Saturday, December 10

If called upon against the Seahawks, Clemens said he will be ready to go.

“Two practices, I don’t think we have to throw the panic flag completely,” Clemens said. “There’s some newness having me in there but it’ll be doable. I’m not going to guarantee anything.”

Roh roh.

:shock:
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
zn said:
Just enjoy watching them kick some Seattle ass.

:mrgreen:

QB Sam Bradford gets back on practice field for Rams after ankle sprain

Associated Press
Saturday, December 10

If called upon against the Seahawks, Clemens said he will be ready to go.

“Two practices, I don’t think we have to throw the panic flag completely,” Clemens said. “There’s some newness having me in there but it’ll be doable. I’m not going to guarantee anything.”

Roh roh.

:shock:
I will enjoy it. Thoroughly. :hehe:

No idea who the QB is going to be anymore. Brandstater took the reps, now he's not taking the reps. Bradford wasn't taking reps, now he's taking them. Clemens wasn't taking them, now he is - sorta - with Bradford - sorta. I expect to see Jackson in the shotgun with Clemens, Bradford and Brandstater in trip formations. That'll confuse the shit out of the Shehags.
 

Stranger

How big is infinity?
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
7,182
Name
Hugh
X said:
So.... be pissed off. But don't try to tell me that a coach with an undemonstrative personality is the source of all that's evil while willfully neglecting everything else that happened. That always pins the bullshit meter for me. A complete roster change-over followed by a year of virtually no free agency, followed by a year with no off-season and tremendous injuries. Across the entire team. And it's the head coach's fault. Yeah. Okay then.

P.J. was right. Spagnuolo should have never taken this job. Only the really brave or foolhardy would even attempt to throw themselves into such an enormous undertaking. But, they did. Devaney and Spagnuolo both willfully took on the challenge. And for that, they get called incompetents or pussies. If people don't know why that pisses me off, maybe now you do. Cuz it's just so fuckin' easy, right? Piece of cake. And Mardy fucking Gilyard could have saved us all if we just *developed* him. FFS. Like I said. I'm probably going to have to leave it be at some point. I can't keep pointing this shit out if it keeps getting ignored in favor of picking goddamn nits. And I'm not pointing anyone out in particular here. I endure this on several sites.
Hey, u make a lot of sense when you get p'd-off. I'm coming around to the idea of keeping Spags another yr.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
interference said:
Hey, u make a lot of sense when you get p'd-off. I'm coming around to the idea of keeping Spags another yr.
Yeah, sorry about that. I'm out of lamb's bread and my baker hasn't opened shop yet. :pissed: