Chris Long Talks Rams D-Line and Twitter

[albefree69]

Fox 2 Sports reporter Charlie Marlow talks it over with Rams DE Chris Long. Long has been a Ram the longest now that Steven Jackson has left. The Rams are building a dominant defensive line. Yes, they talked Rams football, but also Long’s use of Twitter.

[2]5mcjM5YzorNu8H3ywvS-Nsnulg8CHmIV[/2]
<a class="postlink" href="http://fox2now.com/2013/06/08/chris-long-talks-rams-and-twitter/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://fox2now.com/2013/06/08/chris-lon ... d-twitter/</a>

 

[-X-]

lol. "Twitter is where logic goes to die." How true, Chris. How true.

But back to his being the older tenured Ram now. That's ridiculous. It really is.
Players that remain from each year's team since Chris was drafted:

2008 - Chris Long.
2009 - James Laurinaitis.
2010 - Bradford, Saffold, Hull, Cudjo, D. Stewart.
2011 - Quinn, Kendricks, Pettis, J. Williams (released, re-signed), H. Dahl, K. Clemens.

13 guys before Fisher was hired. 13 guys remain, from the previous 4 years, before he was hired.
Thir -- teen (provided my math is correct).

 

[Memento]

lol. "Twitter is where logic goes to die." How true, Chris. How true.

But back to his being the older tenured Ram now. That's ridiculous. It really is.
Players that remain from each year's team since Chris was drafted:

2008 - Chris Long.
2009 - James Laurinaitis.
2010 - Bradford, Saffold, Hull, Cudjo
2011 - Quinn, Kendricks, Pettis, J. Williams (released, re-signed), H. Dahl, D Stewart, K. Clemens.

13 guys before Fisher was hired. 13 guys remain, from the previous 4 years, before he was hired.
Thir -- teen (provided my math is correct).

Stewart was 2010, but you're right on the others.

And yes, Twitter is where logic goes to die.

 

[-X-]

You are correct sir. 2010 is when D Stew signed as a UDFA.
I'll make the appropriate correction, and award you one kudo.

:star:

 

[-X-]

Going off of a previous thread about the Patriots and a claim about them being in constant rebuild mode (always turning over a third of the roster), I decided to take a look and see how many guys remain from their 2008 team until their 2011 team. Meaning, I didn't count anyone they drafted or signed in 2012 when looking at their 2012 roster, but I did count guys they drafted/signed before 2008.

34 guys. Thirty - four. That includes starters, bench, and 3rd stringers.
The same criteria I used for the Rams since 2008.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/2012_roster.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.pro-football-reference.com/t ... roster.htm</a>

 

[albefree69]

X wrote:
Going off of a previous thread about the Patriots and a claim about them being in constant rebuild mode (always turning over a third of the roster), I decided to take a look and see how many guys remain from their 2008 team until their 2011 team. Meaning, I didn't count anyone they drafted or signed in 2012 when looking at their 2012 roster, but I did count guys they drafted/signed before 2008.

34 guys. Thirty - four. That includes starters, bench, and 3rd stringers.
The same criteria I used for the Rams since 2008.

So what's your takeaway?

 

[-X-]

X wrote:
Going off of a previous thread about the Patriots and a claim about them being in constant rebuild mode (always turning over a third of the roster), I decided to take a look and see how many guys remain from their 2008 team until their 2011 team. Meaning, I didn't count anyone they drafted or signed in 2012 when looking at their 2012 roster, but I did count guys they drafted/signed before 2008.

34 guys. Thirty - four. That includes starters, bench, and 3rd stringers.
The same criteria I used for the Rams since 2008.

So what's your takeaway?

Quite the discrepancy (13 < 34). Which is why I asked if we're done (and am hoping we are done) rebuilding. I'd like for us to stabilize now and have about 34 guys on the team in 2015 that we drafted or signed over the previous 4 years.

 

[jsimcox]

I believe we also drafted Eugene Sims in the 6th in 2010

 

[The Rammer]

X wrote:
Going off of a previous thread about the Patriots and a claim about them being in constant rebuild mode (always turning over a third of the roster), I decided to take a look and see how many guys remain from their 2008 team until their 2011 team. Meaning, I didn't count anyone they drafted or signed in 2012 when looking at their 2012 roster, but I did count guys they drafted/signed before 2008.

34 guys. Thirty - four. That includes starters, bench, and 3rd stringers.
The same criteria I used for the Rams since 2008.

So what's your takeaway?

Quite the discrepancy (13 < 34). Which is why I asked if we're done (and am hoping we are done) rebuilding. I'd like for us to stabilize now and have about 34 guys on the team in 2015 that we drafted or signed over the previous 4 years.

It really is a amazing # of the players we have since 2008 when you compare it to another NFL team. Tells you the filth that was brought in here in the previous regimes.

 

[albefree69]

X responded with half a loaf:
Quite the discrepancy (13 < 34). Which is why I asked if we're done (and am hoping we are done) rebuilding. I'd like for us to stabilize now and have about 34 guys on the team in 2015 that we drafted or signed over the previous 4 years.

I understand now. I was under the impression that you were trying to find out if teams did actually average a 1/3 roster turnover every year. I thought you mentioned that you might do that.

While you were getting the info you posted above (great job BTW) did you also answer that question? At least as far as the Cheatriots are concerned?

 

[-X-]

X responded with half a loaf:
Quite the discrepancy (13 < 34). Which is why I asked if we're done (and am hoping we are done) rebuilding. I'd like for us to stabilize now and have about 34 guys on the team in 2015 that we drafted or signed over the previous 4 years.

I understand now. I was under the impression that you were trying to find out if teams did actually average a 1/3 roster turnover every year. I thought you mentioned that you might do that.

While you were getting the info you posted above (great job BTW) did you also answer that question? At least as far as the Cheatriots are concerned?

Not in the broad sense, but if they've retained 34 players from the past 4 seasons, then they're not turning over the roster a third of the time every year. More than anything, I'd like for writers to back their claims up with *something* substantive instead of just saying shit like that. A third of the 53 man roster? Does that also include the practice squad? If it's just the 53 man roster, then they're replacing 18 (rounded up) players a year? Not according to my calculations.

 

[albefree69]

X adding another slice or three:
Not in the broad sense, but if they've retained 34 players from the past 4 seasons, then they're not turning over the roster a third of the time every year. More than anything, I'd like for writers to back their claims up with *something* substantive instead of just saying shyte like that. A third of the 53 man roster? Does that also include the practice squad? If it's just the 53 man roster, then they're replacing 18 (rounded up) players a year? Not according to my calculations.

7 draft picks + 8 PS players is 15 players already. Add in some FAs and the yearly cuts and I can easily see more than 18 players. Of course that's including the PS players but even without them you only need to add or subtract 11 players to get to 18. That's only drafting 1 player per round with no compensatory picks. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

You need at least the same amount of cuts as draftees, FAs and UDFAs to stay at 53 players.
Example:
So lets say you draft 8 players
Sign 3 UDFAs that make your final 53
Sign 2 FAs that weren't already on your team the year before.
Total = 13 added players which means you need 13 cuts which is a change of 26 players. That's looking at the "change" from a different perspective than what I think you were thinking about. So lacking the specificity he should have added, that could be what he's talking about.

 

[-X-]

X adding another slice or three:
Not in the broad sense, but if they've retained 34 players from the past 4 seasons, then they're not turning over the roster a third of the time every year. More than anything, I'd like for writers to back their claims up with *something* substantive instead of just saying shyte like that. A third of the 53 man roster? Does that also include the practice squad? If it's just the 53 man roster, then they're replacing 18 (rounded up) players a year? Not according to my calculations.

7 draft picks + 8 PS players is 15 players already. Add in some FAs and the yearly cuts and I can easily see more than 18 players. Of course that's including the PS players but even without them you only need to add or subtract 11 players to get to 18. That's only drafting 1 player per round with no compensatory picks. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

You need at least the same amount of cuts as draftees, FAs and UDFAs to stay at 53 players.
Example:
So lets say you draft 8 players
Sign 3 UDFAs that make your final 53
Sign 2 FAs that weren't already on your team the year before.
Total = 13 added players which means you need 13 cuts which is a change of 26 players. That's looking at the "change" from a different perspective than what I think you were thinking about. So lacking the specificity he should have added, that could be what he's talking about.

Well, that's taking into account that all of your draft picks make the team + 3 UDFA's. I would say that's well above the norm. Most teams sign a couple of free agents to fill in some holes here and there while they bring younger players up to speed, but you know that already. Putting all that aside, that could be what he's talking about, even though PS players don't count against the 53. And if so, then it's not such a phenomenon is it?

It would seem that's pretty much what everyone does.

 

[albefree69]

X added:
Well, that's taking into account that all of your draft picks make the team + 3 UDFA's. I would say that's well above the norm. Most teams sign a couple of free agents to fill in some holes here and there while they bring younger players up to speed, but you know that already. Putting all that aside, that could be what he's talking about, even though PS players don't count against the 53. And if so, then it's not such a phenomenon is it?

It would seem that's pretty much what everyone does.

I think draft picks usually make the team but having 3 UDFAs making the team might have been a stretch for the well established teams like the Whiners but on the low side for teams like the Jags.

What it really brings into focus is your original complaint about his lack of specificity which I whole heartedly agree with. The good thing about that from his perspective is that he can almost never be wrong. Which might be why he chose to do that.

Of course it was interesting to think about so in these lean times it wasn't a complete waste. :bign:

 

[-X-]

X added:
Well, that's taking into account that all of your draft picks make the team + 3 UDFA's. I would say that's well above the norm. Most teams sign a couple of free agents to fill in some holes here and there while they bring younger players up to speed, but you know that already. Putting all that aside, that could be what he's talking about, even though PS players don't count against the 53. And if so, then it's not such a phenomenon is it?

It would seem that's pretty much what everyone does.

I think draft picks usually make the team but having 3 UDFAs making the team might have been a stretch for the well established teams like the Whiners but on the low side for teams like the Jags.

What it really brings into focus is your original complaint about his lack of specificity which I whole heartedly agree with. The good thing about that from his perspective is that he can almost never be wrong. Which might be why he chose to do that.

Of course it was interesting to think about so in these lean times it wasn't a complete waste. :bign:

Yeah, it was a good conversation. Wanna go kick his ass for being hyperbolic now?

 

[albefree69]

X wanting to rumble:
Yeah, it was a good conversation. Wanna go kick his ass for being hyperbolic now?

Hey I'm ready! :gr:

 

[EastRam]

X Wrote
Quite the discrepancy (13 < 34).

East responds. Semantics. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: