ballpeen Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 Absurd or not, it is what it is. Nothing says St.Louis has to build a new factlity. They can tell the Rams that this is where you will play. Take it or leave it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flugel Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 Even with our QB position that always advertised the head lamp of an oncoming train, this team got to 7-4 (with 2 decisive wins over playoff teams like Cincitucky and Pittsburgh's Steeroids) in 2014. After we lost Mack, I'll admit we needed the easiest part of our schedule to win ugly against teams willing to beat themselves if our offense wasn't up to doing it on their own. Not always the brightest apple in the orchard, I never knew wtf "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts" meant. I thought it meant something like some poor squid couldn't make it past the inventory stages of foreplay intercepting all plan to powerglue love. In any event, the biggest improvement to our pass protection and running game seemed to be the addition of Joel Bitonio in between Alex Mack and Joe Thomas upfront. That chain of 3 gave us quite a spark while it was healthy. It was at least a reminder of Steinbach playing between LT and Center in terms of turning a nobody like Hillis into a Madden Coverboy running between the tackles. In 2009, we ranked 8th out of 32 teams at rushing the football against 9 in the box (when there was no such thing as a forward pass). Bigger point, was we could suddenly count on running between the tackles WAY more than we could in 2013 (when we seemed exclusive to only being able to run off tackle with whatever Rent-a-squid RB we looked to from Houston's practice squad). With 5 blockers upfront starting the 2014 season, 60% are Pro Bowl caliber or fringing it, while Greco looked much umproved early on. Schwartz is average against the run (anytime we don't have a game plan running at JJ Watt 95% of our handoffs). After Mack went down, here's what I noticed behinning the 1st game he didn't start (Jax). The Brian Hoyer that I thought was looking a lot like the one who pleasantly surprised me in 2013 - suddenly stopped stepping into any of his throws. It was like he suddenly remembered he had a huge knee reconstruction he needed to protect to the tune of watching most passes come off the back foot without a strong enough arm to okay it. Meanwhile, the yards per carry averages of Crow and Tate decreased considerably. In essence, we were right back to counting on 2 good blockers out of 5 (constituing only 40% of our interior blocker rather than 60% workign terrific. If you're thinking the way Joe Banner was thinking - how much does Mack really matter? Well, it wasn't just replacing a Pro Bowl resume with a guy who's never won a starting job before. According to guys like Joe Thomas the communication of line calls up front went from highly efficient to mini bus fire drill mode. Not only that, but to whip somebody's ass at the line of scimmage: 1) you have to get there first, 2) you have to maintain a better pad height to win/sustain leverage, 3) you have to get to the next tier of defense when a cutback RB is passing the line of scrimmage... And when we talk pass protection, there were a bunch of sissies on Pittsburgh before our rematch expressing concern to the league that Mack doesn't allow them to jump up to deflect passes in the passing lanes. Wait a minute - the Steeroids are complaining about dirty football? Yeah okay! It's about time you had some karma coming back atchya... I just never saw Mack getting ragdolled the way his replacements were. Speaking of pad height in the trenches, I'll never forget how far back Gerald McCoy threw McDonald as quickly as he did. Anyway, I could have seen us FINISHING teams like Indy or other opponents we had halftime leads on if we had Mack back giving us that 60% of top quality making TDs a realistic goal while time of possession flips back to our favor. We would have easily finished Indy if our secondary didn't feel like they had a half marathon on their legs from all our 3 and outs on offense. Early in the year, it was kind of nice when our best case scenario wasn't always missing Dawson's range out to 60 yards all the time. We didn't have that in 2013 so there was epic progress in the works for a team coming off 4-12. We were even winning in spite of injury for as a long as a team trying to rebound from 4-12 could do such a thing. Teams that have been drafting well since 1999 handle injury volumes better than we did after we got to 7-4. With Mack back healthy, I could see a veteran QB like Hoyer getting back to being the pleasant surprise he was in 2013 and early on in 2014. I can also see the yard per carry averages for our runningbacks spiking back up. We have great opportunities in the draft to add taller targets (via WR & TE) for our red zone in round 1 while we have more than enough cake to re-sign Miles Austin. All very doable to the extent of making this a much easier team to QB than previous years. If this isn't still Hoyer's best situation - his agent is drinking the same stupid juice that konked Rip Van Winkle out... History already showed us we could win when our volume of injury stays above excessive. The more we improve our last 10 active roster spots - the more we can handle injury. This is doable too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Absurd or not, it is what it is. Nothing says St.Louis has to build a new factlity. They can tell the Rams that this is where you will play. Take it or leave it. Again, my question is how did the most state of the art facility at the time become obsolete in just 20 years. When was Wrigley Field built? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpeen Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Again, my question is how did the most state of the art facility at the time become obsolete in just 20 years. When was Wrigley Field built? Because the fans of just 20 years ago didn't want the same things as the fans of today want. Twenty years ago we were the 30-40 somethings. We didn't care about fantasy scores or good cell phone reception. Todays do. The same can be said about premium venues inside the stadium. It isn't simply about seats anymore. It's about spaces to allow for these premium venues. As for baseball, I think there is more tradition associated with baseball. Football as an example probably changes more rules on a yearly basis than baseball has in the last 40 years. Green Bay might be the only "shrine" in football, and even there it has undergone major upgrades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Because the fans of just 20 years ago didn't want the same things as the fans of today want. Twenty years ago we were the 30-40 somethings. We didn't care about fantasy scores or good cell phone reception. Todays do. The same can be said about premium venues inside the stadium. It isn't simply about seats anymore. It's about spaces to allow for these premium venues. As for baseball, I think there is more tradition associated with baseball. Football as an example probably changes more rules on a yearly basis than baseball has in the last 40 years. Green Bay might be the only "shrine" in football, and even there it has undergone major upgrades. I would have thought that the St. Louis Dome would have been equipped with Club seats, lounges, etc. etc. All that stuff people want. And I would assume that the scoreboards, cell phone reception etc. could have been installed through upgrades in technology in that facility. No? I guess I am wrong....perhaps that place was built on the cheap. (Oh well.....I grew up with the Rams in LA anyway.....so I have no problem if they go back there. Though I prefer the Raiders stay in Oakland and the Chargers in SD.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Absurd or not, it is what it is. Nothing says St.Louis has to build a new factlity. They can tell the Rams that this is where you will play. Take it or leave it. Sad thing is 'Peen it looks like the Rams owner wants to leave it. Why he would want to spend money to build a stadium in LA, (an area that has proven they're lukewarm football fans) and not spend the money in St Louis is puzzling. I have several good friends in the St Louis area, try to get out there at least once a year- that metropolis is plenty big enough, and certainly worthy to have an NFL team. It's flat-out owner extortion. Looks like the state of Missouri thinks enough of keeping the Rams to spend whatever is necessary. Too bad St. Louis didn't think (as Cleveland did) of putting a specific performance clause in the lease. PS I will be making 2 trips west to catch the Browns play the Rams and Chiefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Even with our QB position that always advertised the head lamp of an oncoming train, this team got to 7-4 (with 2 decisive wins over playoff teams like Cincitucky and Pittsburgh's Steeroids) in 2014. After we lost Mack, I'll admit we needed the easiest part of our schedule to win ugly against teams willing to beat themselves if our offense wasn't up to doing it on their own. Not always the brightest apple in the orchard, I never knew wtf "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts" meant. I thought it meant something like some poor squid couldn't make it past the inventory stages of foreplay intercepting all plan to powerglue love. In any event, the biggest improvement to our pass protection and running game seemed to be the addition of Joel Bitonio in between Alex Mack and Joe Thomas upfront. That chain of 3 gave us quite a spark while it was healthy. It was at least a reminder of Steinbach playing between LT and Center in terms of turning a nobody like Hillis into a Madden Coverboy running between the tackles. In 2009, we ranked 8th out of 32 teams at rushing the football against 9 in the box (when there was no such thing as a forward pass). Bigger point, was we could suddenly count on running between the tackles WAY more than we could in 2013 (when we seemed exclusive to only being able to run off tackle with whatever Rent-a-squid RB we looked to from Houston's practice squad). With 5 blockers upfront starting the 2014 season, 60% are Pro Bowl caliber or fringing it, while Greco looked much umproved early on. Schwartz is average against the run (anytime we don't have a game plan running at JJ Watt 95% of our handoffs). After Mack went down, here's what I noticed behinning the 1st game he didn't start (Jax). The Brian Hoyer that I thought was looking a lot like the one who pleasantly surprised me in 2013 - suddenly stopped stepping into any of his throws. It was like he suddenly remembered he had a huge knee reconstruction he needed to protect to the tune of watching most passes come off the back foot without a strong enough arm to okay it. Meanwhile, the yards per carry averages of Crow and Tate decreased considerably. In essence, we were right back to counting on 2 good blockers out of 5 (constituing only 40% of our interior blocker rather than 60% workign terrific. If you're thinking the way Joe Banner was thinking - how much does Mack really matter? Well, it wasn't just replacing a Pro Bowl resume with a guy who's never won a starting job before. According to guys like Joe Thomas the communication of line calls up front went from highly efficient to mini bus fire drill mode. Not only that, but to whip somebody's ass at the line of scimmage: 1) you have to get there first, 2) you have to maintain a better pad height to win/sustain leverage, 3) you have to get to the next tier of defense when a cutback RB is passing the line of scrimmage... And when we talk pass protection, there were a bunch of sissies on Pittsburgh before our rematch expressing concern to the league that Mack doesn't allow them to jump up to deflect passes in the passing lanes. Wait a minute - the Steeroids are complaining about dirty football? Yeah okay! It's about time you had some karma coming back atchya... I just never saw Mack getting ragdolled the way his replacements were. Speaking of pad height in the trenches, I'll never forget how far back Gerald McCoy threw McDonald as quickly as he did. Anyway, I could have seen us FINISHING teams like Indy or other opponents we had halftime leads on if we had Mack back giving us that 60% of top quality making TDs a realistic goal while time of possession flips back to our favor. We would have easily finished Indy if our secondary didn't feel like they had a half marathon on their legs from all our 3 and outs on offense. Early in the year, it was kind of nice when our best case scenario wasn't always missing Dawson's range out to 60 yards all the time. We didn't have that in 2013 so there was epic progress in the works for a team coming off 4-12. We were even winning in spite of injury for as a long as a team trying to rebound from 4-12 could do such a thing. Teams that have been drafting well since 1999 handle injury volumes better than we did after we got to 7-4. With Mack back healthy, I could see a veteran QB like Hoyer getting back to being the pleasant surprise he was in 2013 and early on in 2014. I can also see the yard per carry averages for our runningbacks spiking back up. We have great opportunities in the draft to add taller targets (via WR & TE) for our red zone in round 1 while we have more than enough cake to re-sign Miles Austin. All very doable to the extent of making this a much easier team to QB than previous years. If this isn't still Hoyer's best situation - his agent is drinking the same stupid juice that konked Rip Van Winkle out... History already showed us we could win when our volume of injury stays above excessive. The more we improve our last 10 active roster spots - the more we can handle injury. This is doable too... Long, long time no see Tom. Welcome back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Sad thing is 'Peen it looks like the Rams owner wants to leave it. Why he would want to spend money to build a stadium in LA, (an area that has proven they're lukewarm football fans) and not spend the money in St Louis is puzzling. I have several good friends in the St Louis area, try to get out there at least once a year- that metropolis is plenty big enough, and certainly worthy to have an NFL team. It's flat-out owner extortion. Looks like the state of Missouri thinks enough of keeping the Rams to spend whatever is necessary. Too bad St. Louis didn't think (as Cleveland did) of putting a specific performance clause in the lease. PS I will be making 2 trips west to catch the Browns play the Rams and Chiefs. I think that St. Louis probably did have a specific performance clause.....that for the term of the lease the Rams had to play in that stadium. But that lease ran out. Even with the situation with Modell and the Browns, the Muni Stadium lease with the city did have an expiration date. Modell would have been free to leave......3 years later than when he tried. That is what a lot of people don't understand. It was the lease terms that won Cleveland the right to keep the Browns here. The NFL intervened because though the city had the right to have the Browns play.....they did not have the right to dictate what kind of team he put out on that field, or what kind of money he would have to spend on the team, per se. Nor, other than basic maintenance did Modell have any obligation to make improvements to the old stadium. But they could make them play there. In St. Louis, it appears that the Rams had a 20 year lease, with a provision to opt out after that. So their mandatory lease term expires it seems after this coming season. They apparently have indicated that they are selection to exercise their option to make the lease year to year after the 20 years......in other word, they can leave at any time after this year.....and as long as they have 24 of the 32 league owners consent to their move.....which Goodell would push to allow. http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/2014/10/readers-st-louis-rams-will-opt-out-of-dome-lease/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
browns52 Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 also a town made up of a lot of transients. WSS la is a basketball town anyway....even though they have fallen on hard times... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpeen Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 la is a basketball town anyway....even though they have fallen on hard times... I don't buy that. The Doders draw well. The Angles do well. The Kings draw 16,000 a game. The problem LA had with football was the Coliseum. The place was constructed for the 1932 Olympics. You had seats you expected or needed to sell that were maybe 300 yards from the field. Good luck with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark O Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 la is a basketball town anyway....even though they have fallen on hard times... LA is a we will show up as long as you win town. That's the bottom line... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 la is a basketball town anyway....even though they have fallen on hard times... The Clippers are doing fine........LA is what MarkO said. They are behind you, win or tie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark O Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 The Clippers are doing fine........LA is what MarkO said. They are behind you, win or tie. That's actually most of SoCal actually. San Diego isn't any different. Everyone is a Chargers fan as long as they're winning as soon as they start losing, no one cares or shows up for the games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 That's actually most of SoCal actually. San Diego isn't any different. Everyone is a Chargers fan as long as they're winning as soon as they start losing, no one cares or shows up for the games. They didn't put up much of a fuss about the Clippers moving to LA. That was the most useless move.....to go play in the same arena as the Lakers, essentially glom on to their market. If they were going to move out of SD, then they should have gone to play in the OC....like the Ducks. They had a nice new arena there, what was wrong with that? Now of course it is the Lakers that are the second rate citizen in that town. That don't break my heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark O Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 They didn't put up much of a fuss about the Clippers moving to LA. That was the most useless move.....to go play in the same arena as the Lakers, essentially glom on to their market. If they were going to move out of SD, then they should have gone to play in the OC....like the Ducks. They had a nice new arena there, what was wrong with that? Now of course it is the Lakers that are the second rate citizen in that town. That don't break my heart. They moved out of San Diego and played at the LA Sports Arena which is right next to the Coliseum and just as big of a dump as the old San Diego sports arena was and still is. They should've moved to Anaheim when the Pond opened but Donald Sterling wouldn't think of moving the team out of LA because he wanted to be where he could be seen by all the famous Hollywood types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 They moved out of San Diego and played at the LA Sports Arena which is right next to the Coliseum and just as big of a dump as the old San Diego sports arena was and still is. They should've moved to Anaheim when the Pond opened but Donald Sterling wouldn't think of moving the team out of LA because he wanted to be where he could be seen by all the famous Hollywood types. Right...it did seem that he was primarily interested in sniffing celebrity asses. Is that one of the reasons the Rams want to go back there? I recall when I was younger...before when the Rams moved to Anaheim and before the Raiders were there that the Rams were the "Celebrities team". The Rams back in the 60s and 70s were frontrunners Central as much or more than the Cowboys/Steelers. Could they be that again? Or would they have to vie for FRAK Heaven with the Raiders under this new proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flugel Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 Long, long time no see Tom. Welcome back. Thanks Hoorta! Looking forward to talking football with you again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.