If Rams' O doesn't improve, it won't be for lack of trying/FSMW

[Rabid Ram]

It's not my fault (our O-line sucks) is a normal reason for shading the truth isn't it? I'd go so far as to say it's the most common reason for telling small (as in not that important) lies.

I'm not reading and responding to what he said because I'm skeptical about everything he says (although I am), I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in what he said in this article. Had his name been George Washington I'd have seen and said the same thing.

And had he focused on the offense you would complain he wasn't building the defense and vise versa. You guys just wanna focus on the one part of the plan that hadn't worked and complain he's a liar.

 

[-X-]

I do see them doubling down often....But if that is their SOP, why even consider, Martin & Warford in prior drafts? Or rather, why not grab Collins in this draft, since they were repairing the line, it seems, in 2015?

Dunno.
I do think that philosophy is a bit fragmented.
Maybe sometimes it's too difficult to pass up someone that sits atop their board.

 

[Rmfnlt]

I think fragmented is an accurate word when describing their rebuilding efforts.

 

[-X-]

And had he focused on the offense you would complain he wasn't building the defense and vise versa. You guys just wanna focus on the one part of the plan that hadn't worked and complain he's a liar.

I don't think we should assign motives to other posters.
@Alan's not really a unilateral complainer. He's pretty linear in his thinking.
At least that's been my experience with him over several years.

 

[Rmfnlt]

I don't think we should assign motives to other posters.
@Alan's not really a unilateral complainer. He's pretty linear in his thinking.
At least that's been my experience with him over several years.

Does linear mean obnoxious? p)

 

[LesBaker]

She writes a good article. Seems to closely follow the Rams/NFL.
And she looks like this.

That's a good combo.

I'd hit it.

 

[-X-]

Does linear mean obnoxious? p)

 

[Alan]

-X- seeing ulterior motives:
I don't think he denied ownership of that though. He just gave a reason why it wasn't fully and completely addressed as of yet. That's the way I read it anyway. Which goes hand-in-hand with his (and Snead's) stated philosophy that they rebuild *units* one at a time. They used the draft to build the receiving corps, used the draft to build up the D-line, used the draft to build the secondary, used the draft to build the special teams, and are now using the draft to build the O-line. Could it be you're just not a fan of the priority he assigned to each unit?

A couple of things about your comment:

I'll take your last comment first. Yes, I'm not a fan of his choices but I fully realize that there are many ways to skin a cat and they can all be successful. So I hope not. Keep in mind that I wasn't panning his choices in my original comment. The first half of my second post was in response to what So Ram said to me.

The second half of my response to So Ram is when I talked about my original comment. You can't imply that your priorities are the lines as when he said this: "You build your team inside out" & "I wanted to build the offensive line (from the beginning)" top it off with this "There were too many other needs. And so we filled those" and then proceed to ignore those statements when it comes to the O-line. You need only see the stark difference in what he did on the D-line to see my point. Don't make those statements and I don't laugh at what he said. Plus and this is very important, I'm only talking about what he did in and said about the draft and that's exactly what he was talking about. The choice of addressing one area in FA (the O-line) versus another area has nothing to do with my original comment but you, just like So Ram, brought that into the conversation. Possibly Fisher might have been thinking about his player acquisitions in general rather than just the draft but that's not what came out of his mouth.

Those statements are incompatible with his actions. Thus my original comment. Had he said "It all starts with your defense" after spending almost all his draft capital on the offense (including the O-line) and I would make the same comment.

 

[LesBaker]

Does linear mean obnoxious? p)

In this particular case they are synonyms yes.

 

[LesBaker]

I love that GIF and I need it to use later so I demand that you give me the link!

 

[-X-]

A couple of things about your comment:

I'll take your last comment first. Yes, I'm not a fan of his choices but I fully realize that there are many ways to skin a cat and they can all be successful. So I hope not. Keep in mind that I wasn't panning his choices in my original comment. The first half of my second post was in response to what So Ram said to me.

The second half of my response to So Ram is when I talked about my original comment. You can't imply that your priorities are the lines as when he said this: "You build your team inside out" & "I wanted to build the offensive line (from the beginning)" top it off with this "There were too many other needs. And so we filled those" and then proceed to ignore those statements when it comes to the O-line. You need only see the stark difference in what he did on the D-line to see my point. Don't make those statements and I don't laugh at what he said. Plus and this is very important, I'm only talking about what he did in and said about the draft and that's exactly what he was talking about. The choice of addressing one area in FA (the O-line) versus another area has nothing to do with my original comment but you, just like So Ram, brought that into the conversation. Possibly Fisher might have been thinking about his player acquisitions in general rather than just the draft but that's not what came out of his mouth.

Those statements are incompatible with his actions. Thus my original comment. Had he said "It all starts with your defense" after spending almost all his draft capital on the offense (including the O-line) and I would make the same comment.

Okay then.

But I still don't see it as a lie. Plans (in and of themselves) almost always go through a metamorphosis from their inception to full implementation. Because of that, I don't see him as being deceptive or anything. But that's just me. He may (or may not) have, at some point, thought he had the O-line figured out before this year. Lotta things happened that were not easy to foresee or anticipate.

 

[-X-]

I love that GIF and I need it to use later so I demand that you give me the link!

It's one I made for my site.

http://vidsbyx.blogspot.com/

 

[LesBaker]

It's one I made for my site.

http://vidsbyx.blogspot.com/

Thanks man, I appreciate it and will be using many of these at work.

 

[Alan]

LACHAMP46 with this:
As I look at your list, do you think Fisher/Snead believed, at ANY time, that Shelly Smith, Chris Williams, Joe Barksdale & Robert Turner could be turned into a cohesive starting unit? Did you believe those 4 players could have been successful? If the answer is yes, then perhaps Fisher is being somewhat honest, as in, he felt he WAS fixing the team from the inside-out, but was unsuccessful...And, since Shelly, Joe, and Chris (?) are still functioning in the league as starters, he wasn't totally off base. Looking back, I never thought those free agents were more than plugs...stop-gaps. Definitely not G-Rob types...and the attempt was foolhardy to fix such a major area in this fashion. I say this now, able to look back, because I feel 2nd & 3rd round is WHEN you seriously address the line...and it appears Fisher went with his scouts & Snead and continued to address other needs (WR, CB, RB, and all the other 2nd & 3rd round picks in 2012-1013)....And, with the trouble Sam had experienced up to that point (2012) with protection & injuries, it seems like a serious miscalculation. So, I basically agree with you, but I do leave a lil room for an honest mistake. Not an out & out LIE....
I will say this, honest mistakes will get ya fired....

There isn't a good answer to that question. Or at least I don't have one.

If he did think those players were the answer then what does that say about his ability to judge talent? Are any of those players starting for another team and if so, are they playing well? I mean they started and played for us so the fact that they're on another team says what?

If he didn't think they were part of the solution then he ignored his own philosophy of "it all starts with the lines" which is also not very complementary. Plus, does he really have a core philosophy if he doesn't adhere to it?

I wasn't calling him an outright liar (although I did), I looked at it as him shading the truth. Happens often, especially when looking back at the past.

But again, we're edging in the direction of talking about the totality of what he did to build the team from the scraps he started out with. He didn't do everything I would have done but I'm not saying his priorities and choices won't work out in the long run better than mine would have. Just be honest about it.

Last but not least, I'm not sure Spagz or Linnyham would still be our HC had they had the same results as Fisher. Especially if a coach with Fisher's gravitas was available.

 

[Alan]

Rabid Ram with this:
And had he focused on the offense you would complain he wasn't building the defense and vise versa. You guys just wanna focus on the one part of the plan that hadn't worked and complain he's a liar.

That would not be correct because my priorities have always been the lines. Both of them.

But I'm sure I would have found something to complain about.

 

[ram007]

13-3 with improved OL. 12-4 with bad OL. Let the season begin!

 

[Akrasian]

I think there was a certain emphasis placed on improving the OL in previous years. Not the way I'd have done it, but then there are many very good reasons I'm not a NFL exec. They did sign multiple top free agents to the line, for instance. They didn't work out, but there were limited resources and basically an entire team to rebuild. I think they wanted a quick fix to the line with the vets, while they used the draft more for other units and to grab BPA quite often. Given the cap issues, putting so much cap room into the OL was probably viewed as most of what they could do without totally ignoring the rest of the team.

I would have definitely used more 3rd/4th rounders on the OL though, to grab depth that could develop, and used fewer picks to double up on positions. Of course, they thought they had drafted a young guard to develop in their first year - pity they couldn't keep him from the buffet table.

I guess what I'm saying is that they did try to build the line - it just worked very poorly. If Wells and Long had worked out, with Saffold also in the mix, then their bargain basement shopping for the rest of the line would have been fine.

 

[Alan]

Akrasian with his plan:
I think there was a certain emphasis placed on improving the OL in previous years. Not the way I'd have done it, but then there are many very good reasons I'm not a NFL exec. They did sign multiple top free agents to the line, for instance. They didn't work out, but there were limited resources and basically an entire team to rebuild. I think they wanted a quick fix to the line with the vets, while they used the draft more for other units and to grab BPA quite often. Given the cap issues, putting so much cap room into the OL was probably viewed as most of what they could do without totally ignoring the rest of the team.

I would have definitely used more 3rd/4th rounders on the OL though, to grab depth that could develop, and used fewer picks to double up on positions. Of course, they thought they had drafted a young guard to develop in their first year - pity they couldn't keep him from the buffet table.

I guess what I'm saying is that they did try to build the line - it just worked very poorly. If Wells and Long had worked out, with Saffold also in the mix, then their bargain basement shopping for the rest of the line would have been fine.

You laid that out very well and that's a plan (3rd/4th picks on O-line guys) I would have been on board with.

 

[Ballhawk]

13-3 with improved OL. 12-4 with bad OL. Let the season begin!

I think that you have that second part backwards! Bad O lines are the reason that it's been so long since the Rams have seen the playoffs.

 

[blackbart]

My biggest complaint with the whole "we wanted to build the oline from the beginning" is why say that crap now?

They had a guy everyone in the world thought was a franchise QB how is protecting him not THE top priority in a rebuild? The defense is looking great and all but they got Bradford beaten so badly they ended up trading him (The reason Fisher took the job).

I'm glad they have thrown some more bodies at the problem but now there is no widely acclaimed QB running the offense. Maybe the rest of the team can make up for it but let's not start trying to sell a line of BS now about wanting to fix the oline all along.