Bernie: Rams Earn Respect In Tough Nfc West

[Stranger]

I guess you belong to the hypersensitive group.:wink:

I mean, he gave varying opinions of what SEAHAWK players said, most of which were positive. The fact that he put a statement that one of the SEAHAWKS brought up Bradford is being provocative? One of the yahoos the drag Bradford through the mud consistently are going to look at that same statement and say Bernie is using injuries for an "excuse".

I find myself disagreeing with Bernie as often as I agree...rarely do I get outraged like so many seem to, and frankly, I just don't get it.

he's simply not objective.

do u really think he posted ALL of the seahag player comments? wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that some of their players complimented sam? why are these comments remiss from the article?

the guy has an agenda, he always does, and he tries to hide that fact and assumes he can deceive his stupid readership. It's called psychopathy, and it's very transparent.

quite frankly, I am tired of deception and the assholes who think their audience is dumb enuf to buy in.

 

[Angry Ram]

I guess you belong to the hypersensitive group.:wink:

I mean, he gave varying opinions of what SEAHAWK players said, most of which were positive. The fact that he put a statement that one of the SEAHAWKS brought up Bradford is being provocative? One of the yahoos the drag Bradford through the mud consistently are going to look at that same statement and say Bernie is using injuries for an "excuse".

I find myself disagreeing with Bernie as often as I agree...rarely do I get outraged like so many seem to, and frankly, I just don't get it.

His articles have the tone of being loud, obnoxious, and his opinion is inconsistent. After every win, the Rams are perfect and doing things wonderfully for the future. After every loss (no matter if it's a 1 point loss or an ass kicking), every FO exec, coach, and player needs to be questioned.

One of the more recent ones is his opinion on the GM, HC, and Sam Bradford. He went on a rant on how stupid it was for Les Snead to put on his "poker face" and try to mess with teams whether or not they would take a QB @ #2. Just after the season ended, he went on a video blog and said the Rams FO needed to publicly come out and say they were committed to Sam Bradford.

Here's the article: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_5dfe0c66-486a-58d9-89c2-e339db5183d5.html

Here's the video: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...tml_9f06d1a8-3be8-548a-b243-5b8a27adfc96.html

Just 2 days ago he comes out and says Rams need so much catching up to do (when in reality it's more on par...4 points is not a major difference, but that's a different topic). http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_96a227fe-2535-5ef3-89f9-ebaef122b29d.html

And today he uses quotes from Seattle players to convey the message the Rams have earned respect. Although, I will give him credit that he doesn't really think so and doesn't sway much in this particular article.

And the one that annoys me the most, when he selectively picks stats or points in time in order to bolster his opinion. A good example of it is regarding Sam Bradford's durability issue. Conveniently, he starts the year he gets injured @ OU and uses that as the starting point to show how many games he's been available through his college and pro career. Why not include his 1st 2 years in college when he was available in all games? Here's the link to that article: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_bb725f54-7b18-5ad9-9592-6a89b6a24d40.html

 

[Thordaddy]

I guess you belong to the hypersensitive group.:wink:

I mean, he gave varying opinions of what SEAHAWK players said, most of which were positive. The fact that he put a statement that one of the SEAHAWKS brought up Bradford is being provocative? One of the yahoos the drag Bradford through the mud consistently are going to look at that same statement and say Bernie is using injuries for an "excuse".

I find myself disagreeing with Bernie as often as I agree...rarely do I get outraged like so many seem to, and frankly, I just don't get it.

If you consider this article in a vacuum Sum I'd think he was a pretty objective guy,but FWIW this is as close to that as anything I've seen him produce in a long time.
Where the people here who have Bernie issues derive them from is not whether we agree, it's whether anything he's writing is genuine not designed to get the reactions.He is the equivalent of a shock jock .
Certainly I find myself in agreement with some even many of his contentions,I just have seen him contradict himself in such short order so many times when I do find myself in agreement I regard it as him paying lip service.
IOW I don't trust him, and what BTW is the value of agreeing with someone you don't trust they actually do agree?
He's a slime ball like that dude who tried to get a rise out of Tavon about Fisher.

There is another "issue" as well, it's how he rehashes the obvious repeatedly and passes it off as "new work" you could very easily read 60 percent of Bernies columns and get 100% of the content,IOW he steals his pay,hard to respect that ,I don't.

 

[Thordaddy]

Sum1BTRthnU, you seem pretty reasonable.

I didn't think they let your kind on internet message boards. :heh:

Gotcha a new avatar

:buttkisser:

 

[RamFan503]

Everyone's at fault except Sam Bradford is a much better point of view

No. But realizing that we are not in better shape by moving on from Sam is a pretty sound observation IMO.

 

[Sum1]

Stranger...Disagree...again, I think your opinion reflects the hypersensitive. He posted PLENTY of positive comments about the Rams. Again, the comment about Bradford was injury history...Ok, can we really dispute that Bradford has had an injury history to this point? How can you be so certain that the Seahawks players did say anything else about Bradford? Seriously, they didn't even face him even once this season!


I respect everyone on this forum and it is by far the best place to have reasonable discussion, but I have to be completely honest...there is almost a witch hunt like animosity toward Bernie Miklasz...it is really kind of humorous. Like I said before, the people that love to bash Bradford look at Bernie as the ultimate so called "Bradford Mom". Sometimes I feel that some on this forum (myself included, BTW) would rather sling mud at any media that might say something critical toward any part of our team whether what they are saying holds water or not.

However, I really find this particular piece to be an odd example of anything to be deceptive. Seems pretty straight forward unless you are looking for something to be upsetting. Actually, I found this particular piece to be less thought provoking than many of Bernie's pieces (which as a columnist is really the idea, to be thought provoking, negatively or positively)...this one was more of just an insightful piece into what the perception is of one particular team.

 

[Sum1]

Gotcha a new avatar

:buttkisser:

Lol...what good does it do to kiss my ass? I'm just another joker with an opinion like the rest of you!

 

[Thordaddy]

Lol...what good does it do to kiss my ass? I'm just another joker with an opinion like the rest of you!

I agree but I'm not the guy on his knees there,you sure you know who I was quoting?

 

[Sum1]

I agree but I'm not the guy on his knees there,you sure you know who I was quoting?

Yeah, I got it...I meant, I think he was just being honest and realizing how superior I am...not kissing any ass...:heh:

 

[RamFan503]

IMO - this is where Bern gets his personal dig in.

No Seattle player criticized Rams quarterback Sam Bradford, but his injury history was noted.

“In this league right now you’ve got to have your quarterback,” Schofield said. “When your quarterback gets beat up and goes down, it changes a lot of things.”

Maybe some players did note his "injury history". I don't know. But the quote directly following it doesn't say that to me. In context, it says that the Rams were in a bad position, despite how tough they played, when they lost their starting QB from getting "beat up". If anything, that statement is an indictment of the O-line.

Now if they had made comments like, "you have to get a QB that can stay on the field" or "you're not going to win if your QB is always out" or something to that effect, THAT would be the players noting his injury history and based on Bern's obvious love for Bradford, he would have posted those kinds of statements if they were said.

To me - Bernie is the one noting Sam's injury history.

And as to the running QB comments, those were directly from a Seattle player. I regard his opinion on the subject no higher than anyone else who suggests a running QB is the answer. It can be argued that a running QB is the reason SF lost in the playoffs. Does anyone really think Wilson was the reason they won that game? Or that his running ability had anything to do with them winning?

 

[Thordaddy]

Yeah, I got it...I meant, I think he was just being honest and realizing how superior I am...not kissing any ass...:heh:

Nah he was kissing your ass in order to throw a dig at other people ,you were just a vehicle there ,don't take it to heart.

 

[MerlinJones]

It's good to know that you can't be good natured with people on here without being called a kiss-ass.

I'll definitely keep that in mind for the future.

 

[RamFan503]

It's good to know that you can't be good natured with people on here without being called a kiss-ass.

I'll definitely keep that in mind for the future.

Meh.

They're just bustin your balls.

 

[Sum1]

IMO - this is where Bern gets his personal dig in.


Maybe some players did note his "injury history". I don't know. But the quote directly following it doesn't say that to me. In context, it says that the Rams were in a bad position, despite how tough they played, when they lost their starting QB from getting "beat up". If anything, that statement is an indictment of the O-line.

Now if they had made comments like, "you have to get a QB that can stay on the field" or "you're not going to win if your QB is always out" or something to that effect, THAT would be the players noting his injury history and based on Bern's obvious love for Bradford, he would have posted those kinds of statements if they were said.

To me - Bernie is the one noting Sam's injury history.

And as to the running QB comments, those were directly from a Seattle player. I regard his opinion on the subject no higher than anyone else who suggests a running QB is the answer. It can be argued that a running QB is the reason SF lost in the playoffs. Does anyone really think Wilson was the reason they won that game? Or that his running ability had anything to do with them winning?

I really, really, think you are reaching there...maybe not intentionally, but I think you are. Please don't take this spitefully, but this is the hypersensitive reaction I'm talking about. Pointing out an injury history is a "dig"? Really? Just stating what it is rather than beating around the bush isn't a dig, it's just the truth. Has Sam had injuries? Were they in they in the past? Is that an injury history?

To me calling "injury history" a dig is no different than when the haters claim that any fact presented is an "excuse".

 

[MerlinJones]

No. But realizing that we are not in better shape by moving on from Sam is a pretty sound observation IMO.

I don't completely agree with your observation since I don't know how you're defining "moving on".
If you define it as replacing Bradford with Kellen Clemens then I agree with you.
If you define it as replacing Bradford with Andrew Luck then I disagree.
If you define it as replacing Bradford with a drafted rookie I'd say you need a couple of seasons to know for sure.

 

[MerlinJones]

Meh.

They're just bustin your balls.

I was replying to sum. Did someone else say something (since you said they)?

 

[Thordaddy]

It's good to know that you can't be good natured with people on here without being called a kiss-ass.

I'll definitely keep that in mind for the future.

Oh don't think I'm typical of the whole board unless of course you are prone to that sort of globalized thinking.

It IS however noted YOU might be a guy who has problems with taking what he dishes.
Is "good natured" ribbing a one way street with you?

 

[MerlinJones]

I really, really, think you are reaching there...maybe not intentionally, but I think you are. Please don't take this spitefully, but this is the hypersensitive reaction I'm talking about. Pointing out an injury history is a "dig"? Really? Just stating what it is rather than beating around the bush isn't a dig, it's just the truth. Has Sam had injuries? Were they in they in the past? Is that an injury history?

To me calling "injury history" a dig is no different than when the haters claim that any fact presented is an "excuse".

Forget all that reasonable crap, you sound like a god damn lunatic.

 

[Stranger]

Stranger...Disagree...again, I think your opinion reflects the hypersensitive. He posted PLENTY of positive comments about the Rams. Again, the comment about Bradford was injury history...Ok, can we really dispute that Bradford has had an injury history to this point? How can you be so certain that the Seahawks players did say anything else about Bradford? Seriously, they didn't even face him even once this season!


I respect everyone on this forum and it is by far the best place to have reasonable discussion, but I have to be completely honest...there is almost a witch hunt like animosity toward Bernie Miklasz...it is really kind of humorous. Like I said before, the people that love to bash Bradford look at Bernie as the ultimate so called "Bradford Mom". Sometimes I feel that some on this forum (myself included, BTW) would rather sling mud at any media that might say something critical toward any part of our team whether what they are saying holds water or not.

However, I really find this particular piece to be an odd example of anything to be deceptive. Seems pretty straight forward unless you are looking for something to be upsetting. Actually, I found this particular piece to be less thought provoking than many of Bernie's pieces (which as a columnist is really the idea, to be thought provoking, negatively or positively)...this one was more of just an insightful piece into what the perception is of one particular team.

Bernee has demonstrated a longterm and consistent pattern of deception. I simply don't trust anything he writes. This article is no different. I believe it has been slanted in some way shape or form to fit whatever agenda he currently has. It's just the color of his spots, and it ain't going to change.

 

[Sum1]

Forget all that reasonable crap, you sound like a god damn lunatic.

Hey, are you now kissing Thors ass????

:yousure: