Karraker: The 2012 Rams are like an expansion team

[-X-]

By Randy Karraker
Published: August 26, 2012 @ 10:56pm
http://www.101espn.com/category/rkarrak ... -patience/



[wrapimg=left]http://www.101espn.com/images/authors/medium/rkarraker.jpg[/wrapimg]After the Rams number one offense and defense were annihilated in Dallas, I sensed a great deal of backlash from fans for the loss. It’s almost as if some Rams fans expect this team to not only be good, but to be great right away.

Perhaps they were so spoiled by what happened in 1999, when Dick Vermeil’s team rebounded from 4-12 to 13-3 and the Super Bowl Championship, that they EXPECT that’s going to happen again. I have news for you; that was an amazing, magical, unprecedented season. It had never happened in the NFL before, and it hasn’t happened since. Teams just don’t go from being terrible for long periods of time to great.

Remember when the Rams went to Cincinnati for game three of the ’99 season? They were tied with the Bengals for the worst record in the 1990’s, and the loser of the game would be the worst. In that game, Az-Zahir Hakim scored four touchdowns, the Rams rolled, and reversed years of futility.

But that team had a returning superstar in Isaac Bruce, a pair of superb rookies in Torry Holt and Dre’ Bly, several breakout starters in London Fletcher, Billy Jenkins, Jr. and Tom Nutten, and solid free agent contributors like Adam Timmerman, Ray Agnew and Todd Collins. To top it off, the Rams were able to trade for the incomparable Marshall Faulk and fell into a future Hall of Fame quarterback in Kurt Warner.

This 2012 team added what they hope will be foundation starters in Kendall Langford, Scott Wells and Cortland Finnegan. There isn’t a Bruce on hand already, there wasn’t a Holt available with the sixth pick in the draft, there aren’t sensational undrafted free agents that have been seasoned for a year like Fletcher, Jenkins and Nutten…and there certainly isn’t a Faulk or Warner.

[hil]The 2012 Rams are similar to an expansion team.[/hil] Of the ninety players on their roster, 57 weren’t here last year. 33 rookies are on hand. A significant group of players were set back by poor coaching, which led to bad, losing habits. The new staff is not only implementing new systems on offense and defense, but trying to untangle the disasters inflicted by the previous regime. Players like Rodger Saffold, Lance Kendricks, Austin Pettis, Greg Salas, Bradley Fletcher, Jerome Murphy and Sam Bradford were all, to different extents, done disservices by Steve Spagnuolo’s staff. Former offensive line Coach Steve Loney, tight ends coach Frank Leonard, receivers coach Nolan Cromwell, cornerbacks coach Clayton Lopez and, well…nobody at quarterbacks coach hurt the franchise and set those players back. It’s notable that Loney is a number two O-line coach in Tampa Bay now, that Leonard isn’t coaching in the NFL, that Cromwell has a nebulous “senior offensive assistant” title for his old friend Mike Holmgren on Pat Shurmer’s Cleveland staff, and Lopez is the number two DB’s coach with the Raiders.

Of course, Bradford was inexplicably left to his own devices last year, a second year player given the job of coaching himself. It’s unbelievable that a franchise would do that with their biggest investment, but the Rams did.

So, they have a ways to go. Paul Boudreau has work to do with that offensive line, but he has a great pedigree. He’s done great work in the past with playoff teams in New Orleans, Detroit and Atlanta, among others. Rob Boras developed Jacksonville’s Marcedes Lewis into a Pro Bowl tight end, and did great work in Chicago before that. Receivers coach Ray Sherman helped develop Javon Walker, Donald Driver and Robert Ferguson in Green Bay, Miles Austin and Dez Bryant in Dallas…and most notably coached Drew Bennett to 58 and 46 catch seasons with the Titans. Chuck Cecil’s Tennessee DB’s were second in the NFL in interceptions when he coached them, and third in picks in the three years he was defensive coordinator. Frank Cignetti helped develop Aaron Brooks into a playoff quarterback while working under offensive coordinator Mike McCarthy in Green Bay.

In short, the last staff wasn’t very good, and their current position in the league is evidence of that. This staff has DONE IT in the NFL, and the numbers back that up.

Are the Rams going to be great out of the gate? I don’t expect that. This is going to be a building process. But, individual players will most certainly improve under this regime, and that will make for a better team as time goes on. It’s hard for a fan base that has watched fifteen wins, eight at home, in the last five years to be patient. But that’s what being a fan of Jeff Fisher’s Rams requires. And it’ll pay off in the long run.

 

[Yamahopper]

No they are not.

 

[Thordaddy]

Yup, it's a rebuild, but I won't let go of my irrational exuberance until it's time,my time,not Karraker's.
I think Fisher HAS a team with ENOUGH talent to invoke the "Any given Sunday" theorem,I think we sort of did that last year against Nawlins w/o Bradford and JMO we can do it again ,find some consistency and approach 8 wins.
It won't be easy, but capital F this "we can't replicate anything even close to what happened in '99".
Optimism ONLY gets people to believe the work they are putting in will pay off and pessimism makes people give less effort ,I want a team that reflects my attitude.
It is was and ALWAYS will be my position that bad news arrives too soon ,no need to rush it.

 

[Anonymous]

The 2012 Rams are similar to an expansion team

They're expanding so much they may have as many as 9 new starters.

Which I think is the limit for expansion teams.

Anything beyond that and it's considered actually starting over.

 

[Angry Ram]

9 new rookie starters? Or 9 new starters total?

Wells, Finnegan, Langford, whoever @ LG, both OLB...all vets or if Mattison gets the LG spot, a 2nd year guy. They are all vets, 2 of them Pro Bowl vets.

Brockers, Jenkins are the only rooks having starting spots.

 

[Anonymous]

9 new rookie starters? Or 9 new starters total?

Wells, Finnegan, Langford, whoever @ LG, both OLB...all vets or if Mattison gets the LG spot, a 2nd year guy. They are all vets, 2 of them Pro Bowl vets.

Brockers, Jenkins are the only rooks having starting spots.

Counting the 22.

Bearing in mind that some of these are not filling holes. Bartell was fine. As he is proving this summer. Adding Finnegan was not filling a hole, it was bringing in a system- and coach-familiar vet. Nothing wrong with that. But it's not filling a hole. That's also true of Dunbar. They would have replaced Robbins anyway cause he tanked (same with Brown) so none of that is "changing direction and starting over," which is the only definition of a rebuild I ever use (or accept).

So that's Jenkins, Finnegan, Dunbar, the SLB whoever he is, Langford, Brockers, the LOG whoever he is, Wells, we don't know about receiver but Amendola will be their chief guy...I count WR as one. I have a caveat on ROT cause I think Smith will be the starter.

9. If Richardson plays all season, 10.

The rest regarding the future is speculation. No one knows who will stick and who won't cause they're young. Very good chance JL, Quinn, Long, Saffold, and Bradford (in spite of some over-reacting to one PS game) will stick.

But not knowing cuts both ways. It can't be a rebuild if you have a team so young you don't know. That's "not knowing." Rebuilding is unambiguous. In a rebuild you KNOW. You make a deliberate effort to start over and strip the team accordingly--because it has poor players, not because you're switching Bartell for Finnegan, both of whom are clearly good starters.

No one argued they weren't rebuilding in 2009. They were deliberately stripping it all down and starting over. They had problematical leftovers like Barron, not guys they clearly count on like Saffold. It was clear. Everyone knew it. There was no debate over it.

Of the remaining players the only ones in any real danger of being replaced in the immediate future are the safeties. Everything else is up in the air because it's a young team.

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that Karraker is single-handedly the weakest analyst of anyone who writes on the Rams. His impressionistic, unanalytical beliefs on this strike me as completely dead wrong.

 

[Username]

Rams fans need to have more patience

Been reading that same headline for the past 5 years now.

While last Saturday night definitely wasn't the end of the world, there certainly shouldn't be any excuses for it either. My team is "rebuilding," "restructuring," "remodeling," wtf ever. My team can't tackle, and still has glaring holes in learning each the defensive and offensive schemes 2 weeks away from the regular season.

 

[-X-]

9 new rookie starters? Or 9 new starters total?

Wells, Finnegan, Langford, whoever @ LG, both OLB...all vets or if Mattison gets the LG spot, a 2nd year guy. They are all vets, 2 of them Pro Bowl vets.

Brockers, Jenkins are the only rooks having starting spots.

Counting the 22.

Bearing in mind that some of these are not filling holes. Bartell was fine. As he is proving this summer. Adding Finnegan was not filling a hole, it was bringing in a system- and coach-familiar vet. Nothing wrong with that. But it's not filling a hole. That's also true of Dunbar. They would have replaced Robbins anyway cause he tanked (same with Brown) so none of that is "changing direction and starting over," which is the only definition of a rebuild I ever use (or accept).

So that's Jenkins, Finnegan, Dunbar, the SLB whoever he is, Langford, Brockers, the LOG whoever he is, Wells, we don't know about receiver but Amendola will be their chief guy...I count WR as one. I have a caveat on ROT cause I think Smith will be the starter.

9. If Richardson plays all season, 10.

The rest regarding the future is speculation. No one knows who will stick and who won't cause they're young. Very good chance JL, Quinn, Long, Saffold, and Bradford (in spite of some over-reacting to one PS game) will stick.

But not knowing cuts both ways. It can't be a rebuild if you have a team so young you don't know. That's "not knowing." Rebuilding is unambiguous. In a rebuild you KNOW. You make a deliberate effort to start over and strip the team accordingly--because it has poor players, not because you're switching Bartell for Finnegan, both of whom are clearly good starters.

No one argued they weren't rebuilding in 2009. They were deliberately stripping it all down and starting over. They had problematical leftovers like Barron, not guys they clearly count on like Saffold. It was clear. Everyone knew it. There was no debate over it.

Of the remaining players the only ones in any real danger of being replaced in the immediate future are the safeties. Everything else is up in the air because it's a young team.

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that Karraker is single-handedly the weakest analyst of anyone who writes on the Rams. His impressionistic, unanalytical beliefs on this strike me as completely dead wrong.

That's all well and good, but you're getting stuck in rebuild mode again. I think what Karraker is talking about is the *feel* of this team. 57 new players, a bevvy of rookies (many of which might start), new systems, new coaches, new assistants, new everything really.

Why the 1 year contracts are gone is irrelevant. Why swapping players for other plays doesn't count as filling a hole is irrelevant (all in my opinion of course - no offense). I think lots of people see this as sweeping changes across the board. How it qualifies or quantifies a particular definition isn't what the article is about. It's more about sweeping changes and how it may be unreasonable for us to expect a quick ascent as a team.

 

[Ram Quixote]

The 2012 Rams are similar to an expansion team

That's a fair assessment only if you acknowledge that the 2009 Rams were in worse shape than an expansion team.

 

[-X-]

The 2012 Rams are similar to an expansion team

That's a fair assessment only if you acknowledge that the 2009 Rams were in worse shape than an expansion team.

That was a pick-up game by comparison.

 

[Anonymous]

9 new rookie starters? Or 9 new starters total?

Wells, Finnegan, Langford, whoever @ LG, both OLB...all vets or if Mattison gets the LG spot, a 2nd year guy. They are all vets, 2 of them Pro Bowl vets.

Brockers, Jenkins are the only rooks having starting spots.

Counting the 22.

Bearing in mind that some of these are not filling holes. Bartell was fine. As he is proving this summer. Adding Finnegan was not filling a hole, it was bringing in a system- and coach-familiar vet. Nothing wrong with that. But it's not filling a hole. That's also true of Dunbar. They would have replaced Robbins anyway cause he tanked (same with Brown) so none of that is "changing direction and starting over," which is the only definition of a rebuild I ever use (or accept).

So that's Jenkins, Finnegan, Dunbar, the SLB whoever he is, Langford, Brockers, the LOG whoever he is, Wells, we don't know about receiver but Amendola will be their chief guy...I count WR as one. I have a caveat on ROT cause I think Smith will be the starter.

9. If Richardson plays all season, 10.

The rest regarding the future is speculation. No one knows who will stick and who won't cause they're young. Very good chance JL, Quinn, Long, Saffold, and Bradford (in spite of some over-reacting to one PS game) will stick.

But not knowing cuts both ways. It can't be a rebuild if you have a team so young you don't know. That's "not knowing." Rebuilding is unambiguous. In a rebuild you KNOW. You make a deliberate effort to start over and strip the team accordingly--because it has poor players, not because you're switching Bartell for Finnegan, both of whom are clearly good starters.

No one argued they weren't rebuilding in 2009. They were deliberately stripping it all down and starting over. They had problematical leftovers like Barron, not guys they clearly count on like Saffold. It was clear. Everyone knew it. There was no debate over it.

Of the remaining players the only ones in any real danger of being replaced in the immediate future are the safeties. Everything else is up in the air because it's a young team.

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that Karraker is single-handedly the weakest analyst of anyone who writes on the Rams. His impressionistic, unanalytical beliefs on this strike me as completely dead wrong.

That's all well and good, but you're getting stuck in rebuild mode again. I think what Karraker is talking about is the *feel* of this team. 57 new players, a bevvy of rookies (many of which might start), new systems, new coaches, new assistants, new everything really.

Why the 1 year contracts are gone is irrelevant. Why swapping players for other plays doesn't count as filling a hole is irrelevant (all in my opinion of course - no offense). I think lots of people see this as sweeping changes across the board. How it qualifies or quantifies a particular definition isn't what the article is about. It's more about sweeping changes and how it may be unreasonable for us to expect a quick ascent as a team.

I see no reason whatsoever to regard system switching as "irrelevant." It means that some of the new additions were not needed in terms of filling out a roster--they were just alterations because the coach liked their fit.

A team that needs to be rebuilt has holes. It is deficient. It needs replacements that change the spot from bad to good. It's not a matter of taste or preference. It has holes. Otherwise every time a new coach comes in, and they always bring their guys with them, it's a rebuild. And that's not accurate. Not every coach who gets hired rebuilds (Martz, Linehan) and not ever rebuild means you have a new coach (Fisher 2006). And. Rebuilds in the NFL are actually rare.

And in fact this is all ambiguous enough TO debate. That was not true in 2009. Imagine putting up a poll in 2009 asking if the Rams were rebuilding. The overwhelming majority of the vote would be "duh."

Here, in 2012 on this board, there are a lot of proactive "yes it's a rebuild" posters yet on the poll you put up the vote STILL split. The very visible and proactive "yes rebuild" posters don't seem to be carrying the day. Why not? Because the situation is ambiguous (as it ought to be with a young team) and different so there is no universal perception of it being a rebuild. For good reason.

Again, we didn't even have to debate it in 2009. Everyone knew. Team said so, press said so, players said so, posters said so. It was pure simple and clear.

Now, in 2012, this situation is very different from that one. Whatever you want to call it, it's something else.

Oh, and, another reason Randy is wrong about expansion team comparisons is that expansion teams nowadays have the expansion draft and unlimited cap space to sign free agents. So they're NOT young teams necessarily--in fact, Carolina and Jacksonville weren't. (Of the 22 main starters, in their second year--1996--the Panthers had 18 guys with 3 or more years in the league, including a front 7 that averaged 9 years per player and featured Kevin Greene and Sam Mills). (Of the starting 22 in their 2nd year, the Jagz had 14 starters with 3 or more years. Their starting DL averaged 5 years in the league.)

Over the years Randy has said a lot of things without looking. He's not a researcher. He's a radio guy who gets strong opinions. Basically, a more toned down Bernie.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I still like the term remodel.

I don't expect the team to put up 40 points on everyone this year and roll to the playoffs. What I do expect though is the team to play competitive football. I don't want to see punting to a player who returns it for 90+ yards to win the game, I don't want to see receivers dropping 5 passes a game, or stuff like that.

Next year I expect to, at minimum, be in position for a playoff spot in week 15.

 

[-X-]

I see no reason whatsoever to regard system switching as "irrelevant."

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and stop you right here because I don't want to get into another long, drawn-out discussion about the definition of whatever it is this team is doing. I only said it's irrelevant in the context of the article. Karraker is talking about the overall turnover to this team - players and coaches alike - as giving the impression that the Rams *look* like an expansion team.

For the sake of argument, let's just say they're not rebuilding. I'm fine with that.

57 new players, 33 of which are rookies, would give the impression of an expansion team ONLY in the sense that that's how expansion teams start. Free agents and a TON of rookies. And, I'm fine with that impression too. I have my own feelings about this, and they're not open to interpretation or debate. Not saying that's what you're doing ... just saying those feelings or impressions aren't in play here.

 

[Anonymous]

I see no reason whatsoever to regard system switching as "irrelevant."

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and stop you right here because I don't want to get into another long, drawn-out discussion about the definition of whatever it is this team is doing. I only said it's irrelevant in the context of the article. Karraker is talking about the overall turnover to this team - players and coaches alike - as giving the impression that the Rams *look* like an expansion team.

For the sake of argument, let's just say they're not rebuilding. I'm fine with that.

57 new players, 33 of which are rookies, would give the impression of an expansion team ONLY in the sense that that's how expansion teams start. Free agents and a TON of rookies. And, I'm fine with that impression too. I have my own feelings about this, and they're not open to interpretation or debate. Not saying that's what you're doing ... just saying those feelings or impressions aren't in play here.

But, see, YES it's relevant to Karraker's point because the reason for changes count. It;s relevant because he's NOT analyzing the reasons--he just looks at raw numbers (the kind of thing he tends to do) and leap to conclusions. Otherwise you end up with logic like this--don't ask why, just look at numbers, then ASSERT why...without having looked at the reasons. Well...I ask why. Mere numbers don't mean anything to me.

Which means I am looking at it differently than you. I assume you see that as legit, right?

They had 32 rookies in camp last year. The 33 this year like the 32 last year won't all make the team.

When you go from 53 to 90 you add people. When you have a bunch of in-season injury replacements who are destined to be cut the minute they are signed, you add people.

I just do not see anything like a SCRUBBED THEN TRANSFORMED team. I see the core of a young team added to. That is one big reason why the poll on both boards together adds up to a split vote. This actually IS ambiguous.

It's an unusual situation. In 2009, a team rebuilds. Actually rebuilds. Starts over and rebuilds. That means it is young. (Forget the raw average...look at the starting 22, and it was young). THEN someone takes over. The guy who takes over himself says he doesn't know what he has. No one really has a complete handle on what they have.

Okay. That's the situation.

I don't know why that's called "rebuilding" when the only definition of "rebuilding" that makes sense to me is that you scrub a team down and start over and everyone knows that's what you're doing. I personally have never seen the word used in the NFL to mean anything different.

(And hiring a new coach with 2 new systems doesn't automatically mean rebuilding...cause Linehan wasn't rebuilding. In fact you can rebuild without switching coaches, like Fisher did in 2006.)

Karraker acts like this team started over when all he basically said was they brought in big numbers...a lot of whom will simply not make the team.

If they actually NEEDED 2 DEs, a MLB, the LOT, the QB, and had no RB or key WR---or needed most of those things--I would go, yeah, rebuild. Like I did in 2009.

In 2012 I am mostly left wondering why guys are saying it. To me it just plain looks like something else and not that.

We took 2 votes. It was inconclusive. That tells me this is kind of a situation without a name exactly.

 

[-X-]

I don't know why that's called "rebuilding" when the only definition of "rebuilding" that makes sense to me is that you scrub a team down and start over and everyone knows that's what you're doing. I personally have never seen the word used in the NFL to mean anything different.

I didn't see Karraker call it that.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know why that's called "rebuilding" when the only definition of "rebuilding" that makes sense to me is that you scrub a team down and start over and everyone knows that's what you're doing. I personally have never seen the word used in the NFL to mean anything different.

I didn't see Karraker call it that.

I am addressing the people who DID call it that. I am not debating Karraker...I am debating how the people who call this rebuilding use or read Karraker. That means addressing Karraker's points and also more than Karraker's points.

Bringing in a lot of people just does not mean anything to me unless I look close at the actual reasons and the actual kinds of changes made.

You're pretty good at spotting when what people have is a difference of perspectives. That there are different views possible. I keep saying I don't see how this is a rebuild, and give very good reasons. That means we differ. Karraker calling it an expansion team doesn't alter that. We still see it differently. Beyond that, people are actually split on this, near as two small votes show. That means there's room for people like me who say "I can't call this a rebuild, it's something different." Notice I am not the only one with that opinion. (I know there are going to be a couple of people, not you, who do the "my opinion is truth so what's your problem" thing with this--all debates like this include those. But you know that's harmless.) But at the end of the day I see different views. To me, that's telling, because when I see what I call an actual rebuild, there aren't a lot of different views. Folks just know that's what it is, no debate.

 

[-X-]

I don't know why that's called "rebuilding" when the only definition of "rebuilding" that makes sense to me is that you scrub a team down and start over and everyone knows that's what you're doing. I personally have never seen the word used in the NFL to mean anything different.

I didn't see Karraker call it that.

I am addressing the people who DID call it that. I am not debating Karraker...I am debating how the people who call this rebuilding use or read Karraker.

Who did that?

 

[ramsince62]

OCD.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know why that's called "rebuilding" when the only definition of "rebuilding" that makes sense to me is that you scrub a team down and start over and everyone knows that's what you're doing. I personally have never seen the word used in the NFL to mean anything different.

I didn't see Karraker call it that.

I am addressing the people who DID call it that. I am not debating Karraker...I am debating how the people who call this rebuilding use or read Karraker.

Who did that?

Since the dawn of time or when this discussion first started weeks ago?

I really don't follow what you're doing.

 

[-X-]

I don't know why that's called "rebuilding" when the only definition of "rebuilding" that makes sense to me is that you scrub a team down and start over and everyone knows that's what you're doing. I personally have never seen the word used in the NFL to mean anything different.

I didn't see Karraker call it that.

I am addressing the people who DID call it that. I am not debating Karraker...I am debating how the people who call this rebuilding use or read Karraker.

Who did that?

Since the dawn of time or when this discussion first started weeks ago?

I really don't follow what you're doing.

The dawn of time.

(and I'm breaking your balls. The over/under on when you would realize it is 6 posts)