Steven Jackson happy Jeff Fisher doesn't need training

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't expect a player to say they didn't belong in ANY game - quite the opposite. Your opinion is that we had the talent to contend. I can accept that. I am a total homer so I tend to lean that way most of the time. I'm not even saying I agree with ZN's take on the '10 team. I just agree with what he said in defending his position. We can all see things like what went on in that season differently. I think in most cases it is a fine line between having the talent to contend and being an also ran. We definitely had some weaknesses on that team and with that staff. Does that mean I didn't think we should have won that Seattle game? Hell no. But that's my opinion. His is that we actually performed better that season than he thought we realistically should have given the talent level that he saw. I'm cool with that too.

Yeah the core of my point was, there was just going to be different opinions of the final game in 2010 cause there were different opinions of what went wrong in that game AND where the Rams even stood in 2010. I was naturally disappointed with the loss but it wasn't significant to me and did not mean anything to me because the way I saw the season, that loss did not come as shocking news.

They had a couple of corners, and one safety, and a middle linebacker, an old but heady DE on one side and a young and growing DE on the other. Robbins had one good year that season in between 2 bad ones (age, injuries). The OL had 2 young tackles. After losing Avery and Clayton they had nothing at receiver--other than Amendola as a role player. Robinson was hobbled all year, though now and then he flashed, and DX could only play in 7 games and was only productive in 3 (Seattle was not one of them). Every game DX was productive in, they won. (SD, Denver, SF home game---14 receptions, 266 yards in those games, 6 receptions and 40 yards in the other 4). Rams only won one game where DX played but was not productive.

Jackson was hobbled all year and had the worst YPC of his career.

And Bradford was a rookie.

I didn't know in advance of the season that DX would matter in a couple of games, and I didn't know Clayton would get hurt.

But they looked like a team that was too young.

When I watched them all year, they won for a couple of good reasons, but it exceeded expectations.

The Seattle game got down to Bradford clicking with the receivers, cause Seattle conceded the run. (They also mind-messed with Bradford and kept lining up in ways designed to make him audible out of runs.)

Bradford didn't click with the receivers, so they lost. (In that game I put that on the receivers.)

What that game told me was that they needed a couple of consistent receivers, they needed experience on the OL, they needed some bodies on the defense. But then I knew that before the game.

So what I have just said.

That that is my opinion of what happened.

I know there will be different opinions of what happened.

At the end of the day they will all just be opinions. One game is too little to draw a lot from anyway.

 

[Thordaddy]

But they were in a division title game,so that opinion was invalidated,so FROM there I guess if your opinion is more important than winning that game ,it's how you feal. But the fact is that they were talented enough to be there HAD beaten the other team earlier pretty soundly and by that time the "rookie QB" isn't supposed to be a rookie anymore,he's ONE game short of being a second year veteran and solidly in the offense.
The reports that Carroll outfoxed Shurmer and Spags in that game are irrespective of talent level.
However IF the talent level is the determinate for you it's absolutely clear they HAD the talent to WIN THAT game.
So what cost them the game? And since this thread is about or supposed to be about SJ's opinion whadya suppose he thinks cost them that game? I think he's telling us in the most diplomatic way he can find.
I'd shudder to think we'd hear the we didn't belong there argument if that had been a Super Bowl.
Nah Spags let a golden opportunity slip through his fingers and btw the philosophical approach to that loss could have easily cost that team some of it's "edge" this year.
I won't ever be OK with a loss in any game we should win,if we're outclassed OK,but we weren't ,we were out coached.

I wouldn't expect a player to say they didn't belong in ANY game - quite the opposite. Your opinion is that we had the talent to contend. I can accept that. I am a total homer so I tend to lean that way most of the time. I'm not even saying I agree with ZN's take on the '10 team. I just agree with what he said in defending his position. We can all see things like what went on in that season differently. I think in most cases it is a fine line between having the talent to contend and being an also ran. We definitely had some weaknesses on that team and with that staff. Does that mean I didn't think we should have won that Seattle game? Hell no. But that's my opinion. His is that we actually performed better that season than he thought we realistically should have given the talent level that he saw. I'm cool with that too.

Agreed it was a team that had weaknesses and expectations overall were low so some were satisfied with losing that game.But to view it as a "championship" game and therefore a lofty aspiration for that team without considering that Settle was no juggernaut isn't looking at the whole picture. Seattle won the game and division and turned around the next year and posted a 7-9 record,so it's pretty clear we weren't outclassed,just not that well coached in the most meaningful game of the year.

Again I'm with SJ on this ,we didn't make them stop the run ,we assumed they could,no one is disputing that,that's rolling over IMO,but I get it's JMO and the rest of "MO" is that the guy we have now who SJ is lauding, is the sort of hard nosed competitor that concedes nothing and will MAKE you stop the run and that if he'd been at the helm of this team,we'd have won that game.

THAT difference is what IMO takes a team across that fine line of which you speak,I think we are in better hands than anytime since Martz in his good years.
As long as ALL this is nothing but opinion I take great comfort and pride that mine coincides with Steven "by god"Jacksons

Banjo time :bg:

 

[RamFan503]

Agreed it was a team that had weaknesses and expectations overall were low so some were satisfied with losing that game.But to view it as a "championship" game and therefore a lofty aspiration for that team without considering that Settle was no juggernaut isn't looking at the whole picture. Seattle won the game and division and turned around the next year and posted a 7-9 record,so it's pretty clear we weren't outclassed,just not that well coached in the most meaningful game of the year.

Again I'm with SJ on this ,we didn't make them stop the run ,we assumed they could,no one is disputing that,that's rolling over IMO,but I get it's JMO and the rest of "MO" is that the guy we have now who SJ is lauding, is the sort of hard nosed competitor that concedes nothing and will MAKE you stop the run and that if he'd been at the helm of this team,we'd have won that game.

THAT difference is what IMO takes a team across that fine line of which you speak,I think we are in better hands than anytime since Martz in his good years.
As long as ALL this is nothing but opinion I take great comfort and pride that mine coincides with Steven "by god"Jacksons

Banjo time :bg:

And again - I'm cool with THIS.

I also agree that we are in much better shape coaching wise. Although, I would say that we are in better shape than we were in Martz' "good years". I think Martz was a very good OC under the right head coach. I don't think much of him as a head coach.

So was Spags out coached in the Seattle game? Possibly - maybe even likely. I still liked much of what Spags did for this team and think he will make a pretty good head coach some day. And even though I would have been fine with giving him another year, in this league, it was probably time for him to go and to go after a completely fresh approach.

If they would have hired some other noob for a head coach, I would have been upset. As it sits, they hired what I think was the best experienced head coach available and handed him the keys to the empire. I'm stoked at the possibilities.

 

[Thordaddy]

Agreed it was a team that had weaknesses and expectations overall were low so some were satisfied with losing that game.But to view it as a "championship" game and therefore a lofty aspiration for that team without considering that Settle was no juggernaut isn't looking at the whole picture. Seattle won the game and division and turned around the next year and posted a 7-9 record,so it's pretty clear we weren't outclassed,just not that well coached in the most meaningful game of the year.

Again I'm with SJ on this ,we didn't make them stop the run ,we assumed they could,no one is disputing that,that's rolling over IMO,but I get it's JMO and the rest of "MO" is that the guy we have now who SJ is lauding, is the sort of hard nosed competitor that concedes nothing and will MAKE you stop the run and that if he'd been at the helm of this team,we'd have won that game.

THAT difference is what IMO takes a team across that fine line of which you speak,I think we are in better hands than anytime since Martz in his good years.
As long as ALL this is nothing but opinion I take great comfort and pride that mine coincides with Steven "by god"Jacksons

Banjo time :bg:

And again - I'm cool with THIS.

I also agree that we are in much better shape coaching wise. Although, I would say that we are in better shape than we were in Martz' "good years". I think Martz was a very good OC under the right head coach. I don't think much of him as a head coach.

So was Spags out coached in the Seattle game? Possibly - maybe even likely. I still liked much of what Spags did for this team and think he will make a pretty good head coach some day. And even though I would have been fine with giving him another year, in this league, it was probably time for him to go and to go after a completely fresh approach.

If they would have hired some other noob for a head coach, I would have been upset. As it sits, they hired what I think was the best experienced head coach available and handed him the keys to the empire. I'm stoked at the possibilities.

I'll drink to all of that,I think the bargain basement HC hiring days in St.L are over,no more noobs .

 

[RamFan503]

I'll drink to all of that,I think the bargain basement HC hiring days in St.L are over,no more noobs .

Cheers to you as well. I am expecting big things from this franchise now with a solid owner and a solid coaching staff. Not since the days of Mr. Rosenbloom have I believed in ownership of my Rams. It may be more important to me than who is coaching - though they go hand in hand.

 

[Thordaddy]

I'll drink to all of that,I think the bargain basement HC hiring days in St.L are over,no more noobs .

Cheers to you as well. I am expecting big things from this franchise now with a solid owner and a solid coaching staff. Not since the days of Mr. Rosenbloom have I believed in ownership of my Rams. It may be more important to me than who is coaching - though they go hand in hand.

I think it is, and would go so far as to say that WITH Kroenke as the owner from day 1, Spags would have had a MUCH better chance to succeed.
Something we'll never know, but IMO we now are heading into an era of class ownership that will rival the Mara's,Rooneys and Paul Allen.
I think Kroenke himself had as much to do with why Fisher chose St. L as anything,Stan's quiet confident success will show on the field.

 

[RamFan503]

I'll drink to all of that,I think the bargain basement HC hiring days in St.L are over,no more noobs .

Cheers to you as well. I am expecting big things from this franchise now with a solid owner and a solid coaching staff. Not since the days of Mr. Rosenbloom have I believed in ownership of my Rams. It may be more important to me than who is coaching - though they go hand in hand.

I think it is, and would go so far as to say that WITH Kroenke as the owner from day 1, Spags would have had a MUCH better chance to succeed.
Something we'll never know, but IMO we now are heading into an era of class ownership that will rival the Mara's,Rooneys and Paul Allen.
I think Kroenke himself had as much to do with why Fisher chose St. L as anything,Stan's quiet confident success will show on the field.

Yup, yup, and yup. Now start pluckin that banjo and go brush your tooth. :tooth:

 

[Thordaddy]

I'll drink to all of that,I think the bargain basement HC hiring days in St.L are over,no more noobs .

Cheers to you as well. I am expecting big things from this franchise now with a solid owner and a solid coaching staff. Not since the days of Mr. Rosenbloom have I believed in ownership of my Rams. It may be more important to me than who is coaching - though they go hand in hand.

I think it is, and would go so far as to say that WITH Kroenke as the owner from day 1, Spags would have had a MUCH better chance to succeed.
Something we'll never know, but IMO we now are heading into an era of class ownership that will rival the Mara's,Rooneys and Paul Allen.
I think Kroenke himself had as much to do with why Fisher chose St. L as anything,Stan's quiet confident success will show on the field.

Yup, yup, and yup. Now start pluckin that banjo and go brush your tooth. :tooth:

:lmao: Round here we floss with tow rope :tooth: