Is the writing on the wall invisible?

[-X-]

Circa 2012 Fisher: "We're going to be a team that's going to run the football (Stacy/Mason), protect the quarterback (Robinson, et al) and play good defense (Donald, Brockers, Quinn, Long, etc)."

I'm pretty sure he didn't say, "We want to have a great WR (Watkins) and be a freak side show (Manziel)."

 

[SierraRam]

Circa 2012 Fisher: "We're going to be a team that's going to run the football (Stacy/Mason), protect the quarterback (Robinson, et al) and play good defense (Donald, Brockers, Quinn, Long, etc)."

I'm pretty sure he didn't say, "We want to have a great WR (Watkins) and be a freak side show (Manziel)."

He also said he liked our group of receivers. Man of his word!

(I think the "Writing is on the Wall" for Pead too)

 

[Boffo97]

Circa 2012 Fisher: "We're going to be a team that's going to run the football (Stacy/Mason), protect the quarterback (Robinson, et al) and play good defense (Donald, Brockers, Quinn, Long, etc)."

I'm pretty sure he didn't say, "We want to have a great WR (Watkins) and be a freak side show (Manziel)."

I'd like to think that he picked Robinson because he thinks Robinson helps the team the most going forward.

If he truly is locked into a conservative mindset that those who liked Watkins should have seen coming, then he's not the answer for the Rams at coach and probably shouldn't have been coach of a team with a #1 overall QB, since even a journeyman will get the limited job done that that scheme needs.

If you're happy with the pick, great. That doesn't mean everyone who wanted something different is wrong or "didn't see the writing on the wall". Be happy with your guy and lets move forward. I hope like help I can become happy with him too... but it might be hard for me to if it becomes a whole personal us vs. them deal.

Back in the day, I really wanted Suh. I'm very happy with Bradford now.

 

[-X-]

I'd like to think that he picked Robinson because he thinks Robinson helps the team the most going forward.

If he truly is locked into a conservative mindset that those who liked Watkins should have seen coming, then he's not the answer for the Rams at coach and probably shouldn't have been coach of a team with a #1 overall QB, since even a journeyman will get the limited job done that that scheme needs.

If you're happy with the pick, great. That doesn't mean everyone who wanted something different is wrong or "didn't see the writing on the wall". Be happy with your guy and lets move forward. I hope like help I can become happy with him too... but it might be hard for me to if it becomes a whole personal us vs. them deal.

Back in the day, I really wanted Suh. I'm very happy with Bradford now.

He is locked into a conservative mindset. He hasn't changed his coaching philosophy in two decades. And it works too, because strong defenses with stout running games keep winning Super Bowls. And I didn't say (nor did Fisher) that they're ONLY going to run the football. Bradford doesn't have to drop bombs all over the field. He just needs to be smart, surgical, and take what's there as a result of that run game (play-action). There aren't a lot of journeymen QBs who can do that, and that's why we go through them like bacon at a breakfast buffet.

I am happy with the pick, but I didn't say everyone who wanted something different is wrong. Those are your words - not mine. I'm only pointing out that it shouldn't be surprising when they draft in accordance with his mission statement (that's why I quoted the man himself). They've added 5 receivers in two years, so they already filled what they perceived to be the holes, IMO. And I'm not perpetuating an us vs them 'deal.' That's not my thing. You really need to stop playing mod, Boffo. There are people in place who take care of that.

 

[Memphis Ram]

It's like some have paid little attention to what Fisher has said and done in the past with the Titans. Why would anyone expect anything different when he was hired?

 

[bluecoconuts]

Every time people say "who do we have that can beat corners one on one?" I think "the guy who has been doing it his entire life?

I mean that's what Bailey does right? He's short but he plays big, always has. I'm not sure many corners out there can beat Austin one on one either. Givens should be motivated to bounce back, and Britt has been around long enough. Only guys I'm "worried" about is if Quick will get it. I think he does. Pettis is Pettis, he's just a reliable non flashy guy.

 

[Boffo97]

He is locked into a conservative mindset. He hasn't changed his coaching philosophy in two decades. And it works too, because strong defenses with stout running games keep winning Super Bowls.

Well, then he might not be the answer then. Good coaches take the best players and evolve their plans accordingly rather than try to force the team into their vision or else. Everyone criticized Martz for that and that was with an offense that was already built in his image.

You really need to stop playing mod, Boffo. There are people in place who take care of that.

I don't think it's playing mod to point out that WE ARE BETTER (collectively, not saying you) than to indulge in the personal attack BS I see going on.

If the mods think I'm out of bounds for pointing that out, they of course have every right to wish me well in my future endeavors elsewhere.

But what a lot of people are doing right now (not necessarily you, and I apologize if this wasn't your intent) is personally attacking those not going along with the groupthink.

 

[Ken]

Me and Stedman at one of the Buffalo Wild Wings Rams Draft Parties yesterday.

 

[Boffo97]

Which one is which?

 

[jrry32]

If he truly is locked into a conservative mindset that those who liked Watkins should have seen coming, then he's not the answer for the Rams at coach and probably shouldn't have been coach of a team with a #1 overall QB, since even a journeyman will get the limited job done that that scheme needs.

Unless, of course, his philosophy works. Kind of like a similar philosophy has worked in San Francisco and Seattle.

And, of course, a journeyman QB might be able to "get the job done" but a talented QB will take you much further. Aikman and Brady both did quite well on run heavy teams in their Super Bowl years.

 

[Boffo97]

Unless, of course, his philosophy works. Kind of like a similar philosophy has worked in San Francisco and Seattle.

And, of course, a journeyman QB might be able to "get the job done" but a talented QB will take you much further. Aikman and Brady both did quite well on run heavy teams in their Super Bowl years.

The problem with philosophies is they only work as long as they work (as Martz found out). Taking whoever helps the team more regardless of philosophy (and I think and hope that's what Fisher thought he was doing by taking Robinson) will always be better.

Maybe some others who preferred Watkins are calling the Robinson pick wrong. I'm not. I saw it was coming and I was prepared for it. I honestly don't think any of the big 3 would have been wrong. Thus, none of them is right. It's just opinion. The Rams professionals' opinion was to go with Robinson. I honestly hope they're right.

But I do disagree there was "writing on the wall" to see. And I honestly hope I'm right about that, because our team will be a lot better if I am.

 

[jrry32]

The problem with philosophies is they only work as long as they work (as Martz found out). Taking whoever helps the team more regardless of philosophy (and I think and hope that's what Fisher thought he was doing by taking Robinson) will always be better.

Maybe some others who preferred Watkins are calling the Robinson pick wrong. I'm not. I saw it was coming and I was prepared for it. I honestly don't think any of the big 3 would have been wrong. Thus, none of them is right. It's just opinion. The Rams professionals' opinion was to go with Robinson. I honestly hope they're right.

But I do disagree there was "writing on the wall" to see. And I honestly hope I'm right about that, because our team will be a lot better if I am.

Except philosophy strongly dictates who will help the team more. You have to take guys that fit your scheme or else you're doing the player and your scheme a disservice.

 

[Boffo97]

Except philosophy strongly dictates who will help the team more. You have to take guys that fit your scheme or else you're doing the player and your scheme a disservice.

I don't think Watkins was a bad fit for the team per se. Snisher just thought Robinson would be better.

But honestly, without the benefit of mindreading, this debate will go nowhere. Agree to disagree?

 

[jrry32]

I don't think Watkins was a bad fit for the team per se. Snisher just thought Robinson would be better.

But honestly, without the benefit of mindreading, this debate will go nowhere. Agree to disagree?

Neither do I. I strongly preferred the two OTs at #2 because I think they're more important to the success of our offense but Watkins wasn't a bad fit. Would have been fine with him in a trade down.

 

[Boffo97]

Neither do I. I strongly preferred the two OTs at #2 because I think they're more important to the success of our offense but Watkins wasn't a bad fit. Would have been fine with him in a trade down.

I just wish we were able to trade down any of the big three.... things certainly did change from what we thought they would be even a few weeks ago. A trade down was a near certainty at one point.

 

[ChrisW]

The problem with philosophies is they only work as long as they work (as Martz found out). Taking whoever helps the team more regardless of philosophy (and I think and hope that's what Fisher thought he was doing by taking Robinson) will always be better.

Maybe some others who preferred Watkins are calling the Robinson pick wrong. I'm not. I saw it was coming and I was prepared for it. I honestly don't think any of the big 3 would have been wrong. Thus, none of them is right. It's just opinion. The Rams professionals' opinion was to go with Robinson. I honestly hope they're right.

But I do disagree there was "writing on the wall" to see. And I honestly hope I'm right about that, because our team will be a lot better if I am.

Martz's downfall was that he couldn't evaluate anyone outside of the QB position, and you have to take very specific players for his scheme to work like it did in STL.

 

[Boffo97]

Martz's downfall was that he couldn't evaluate anyone outside of the QB position, and you have to take very specific players for his scheme to work like it did in STL.

Well, that's a symptom of another problem.

I was very much behind Martz back in the day, but he absolutely should have been ONLY a coach. The Rams needed a good GM (and in house scouting).... and no Zygmunt.

 

[HometownBoy]

I don't see how anybody could have even convinced themselves that Manziel would be a Ram, Fisher hates flashy guys who think more of themselves than the team. I mean that was the key factor in why he didn't want Vince Young and spelled his downfall in Tennessee, it's almost like some people don't know anything about some guys until they come here, then they might as well be a rookie.

 

[Boffo97]

I don't see how anybody could have even convinced themselves that Manziel would be a Ram, Fisher hates flashy guys who think more of themselves than the team. I mean that was the key factor in why he didn't want Vince Young and spelled his downfall in Tennessee, it's almost like some people don't know anything about some guys until they come here, then they might as well be a rookie.

One could fill a flowchart with all the reasons why the Rams weren't taking Manziel.

• Attitude (as you pointed out)
• Commitment to Bradford (part of Fisher's reason for coming to the Rams, offered him an extension last year, just the other day confirmed him as the guy)
• Fear of Manziel's game translating to the NFL (which many teams obviously had, whereas there were far less doubts about any of the main three Rams fans talked about)

Even that's probably far from complete.

So I have no problem with writing on the wall being there about Manziel.

 

[OnceARam]

Yup. :shooting: