New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[iced]

Sure, he can say that, he kind of has to say that, most players say that. There are still questions and still difficultly getting it done, that's where we are today. I wouldn't be surprised if he does, but there are still questions right now, and probably will be throughout the year.

I think his comments a couple of months ago prove he doesn't have to say that, let alone anything at all.

Just look at Mathis if you want a good recent example.. If he didn't want to be there, he'd find a way out or retire , which he talked about before - and he didn't have to say that either

 

[RamFan503]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000494196/article/philip-rivers-wants-to-finish-career-with-chargers

Getting tired of this whole twitter code issue.

As I said, I'm just messin' with yuh Iced. But you knew that.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I think his comments a couple of months ago prove he doesn't have to say that, let alone anything at all.

Just look at Mathis if you want a good recent example.. If he didn't want to be there, he'd find a way out or retire , which he talked about before - and he didn't have to say that either

There are tons of examples where players say one thing and do different things. In the end money talks, the more important thing is that he said there's no changes. He can think it'd be awesome to play his entire career with the Chargers. I bet Bruce, Warner, Holt, and Jackson all thought it'd be great to play their entire careers with the Rams and we all know how that went. Bruce went to his biggest rival as a player, Holt went to the team that stole his second ring from him. The point remains there are questions around Rivers' future with the Chargers. Even if there wasn't, they're still an average team right now.

 

[blue4]

Sure, he can say that, he kind of has to say that, most players say that. There are still questions and still difficultly getting it done, that's where we are today. I wouldn't be surprised if he does, but there are still questions right now, and probably will be throughout the year.

This really isn't anything to do with the original argument. Which was that Stan is supposed to have been making the point that his organization is the best to make LA work. It has nothing to do with how we feel about our team, the point being made is that IF he is indeed making that argument it's weak. The numbers don't lie. The Chargers have been much better than us, it's true. The other owners aren't paying attention to how our 2-4 round OL rookies look good, or that Rivers is in a contract year. If one of them actually cares enough to look at our roster they'll see big hopes pinned on unheralded rookies shoulders and a question mark QB. If they watch the SD Rams game they'll see one team who made plays when they had to and one that self destructed. I very much doubt division strength will be brought up. Who amongst the owners will care? And why would they? I'm not saying this to be critical against our team, I'm pointing out what it will look like from the other side of the table. IF and that's a capital IF they are presented with an argument from Stan that his organization will be more successful, he won't be able to back that up at all. Not with any kind of facts. He can trump the Raiders, but he's got no shot at SD.

 

[iced]

There are tons of examples where players say one thing and do different things. In the end money talks, the more important thing is that he said there's no changes. He can think it'd be awesome to play his entire career with the Chargers. I bet Bruce, Warner, Holt, and Jackson all thought it'd be great to play their entire careers with the Rams and we all know how that went. Bruce went to his biggest rival as a player, Holt went to the team that stole his second ring from him. The point remains there are questions around Rivers' future with the Chargers. Even if there wasn't, they're still an average team right now.

I don't think Mike Mccoy is going to squabble over a million like Linehan and Bruce...Additionally, none of those players play positions that have the longevity of QB - except Warner, which we all know is a different case in and of itself.

Everything from Rivers' camp and Chargers has suggested they will get a deal done - a complete opposite of several months ago. And I don't buy the "he has to say that" line, especially in this case. Clearly it doesn't apply; and players that are holding out don't have to say anything, either. I'd worry if Rivers pulls a weddle or Dez Bryant and refuses to show up to camp/OTAs/Games

 

[iced]

This really isn't anything to do with the original argument. Which was that Stan is supposed to have been making the point that his organization is the best to make LA work. It has nothing to do with how we feel about our team, the point being made is that IF he is indeed making that argument it's weak. The numbers don't lie. The Chargers have been much better than us, it's true. The other owners aren't paying attention to how our 2-4 round OL rookies look good, or that Rivers is in a contract year. If one of them actually cares enough to look at our roster they'll see big hopes pinned on unheralded rookies shoulders and a question mark QB. If they watch the SD Rams game they'll see one team who made plays when they had to and one that self destructed. I very much doubt division strength will be brought up. Who amongst the owners will care? And why would they? I'm not saying this to be critical against our team, I'm pointing out what it will look like from the other side of the table. IF and that's a capital IF they are presented with an argument from Stan that his organization will be more successful, he won't be able to back that up at all. Not with any kind of facts. He can trump the Raiders, but he's got no shot at SD.

Nailed it.

 

[bluecoconuts]

This really isn't anything to do with the original argument. Which was that Stan is supposed to have been making the point that his organization is the best to make LA work. It has nothing to do with how we feel about our team, the point being made is that IF he is indeed making that argument it's weak. The numbers don't lie. The Chargers have been much better than us, it's true. The other owners aren't paying attention to how our 2-4 round OL rookies look good, or that Rivers is in a contract year. If one of them actually cares enough to look at our roster they'll see big hopes pinned on unheralded rookies shoulders and a question mark QB. If they watch the SD Rams game they'll see one team who made plays when they had to and one that self destructed. I very much doubt division strength will be brought up. Who amongst the owners will care? And why would they? I'm not saying this to be critical against our team, I'm pointing out what it will look like from the other side of the table. IF and that's a capital IF they are presented with an argument from Stan that his organization will be more successful, he won't be able to back that up at all. Not with any kind of facts. He can trump the Raiders, but he's got no shot at SD.

That's basically what I've been saying, theyrthey're going to look at two average teams and a bad one, and that's basically it.

 

[blue4]

That's basically what I've been saying, theyrthey're going to look at two average teams and a bad one, and that's basically it.

But one of them-us-isn't average. I'm sorry but we aren't yet. They're going to see one team whose done okay, been competitive, and been to the playoffs. An then they are going to see two teams who have been in a heated competition to see whose not going to be the losingest team in NFL history. Its a sad fact. Unpleasant for us, but it's the truth. Business owners look at trends. And we trend poorly from that perspective. I think Stan needs to focus on the financial and building speed side of it if he wants to make a compelling case. He can argue that, he can argue that he's still got fans in LA. But the business success story narrative is DOA IMO.

 

[RamFan503]

This really isn't anything to do with the original argument. Which was that Stan is supposed to have been making the point that his organization is the best to make LA work. It has nothing to do with how we feel about our team, the point being made is that IF he is indeed making that argument it's weak. The numbers don't lie. The Chargers have been much better than us, it's true. The other owners aren't paying attention to how our 2-4 round OL rookies look good, or that Rivers is in a contract year. If one of them actually cares enough to look at our roster they'll see big hopes pinned on unheralded rookies shoulders and a question mark QB. If they watch the SD Rams game they'll see one team who made plays when they had to and one that self destructed. I very much doubt division strength will be brought up. Who amongst the owners will care? And why would they? I'm not saying this to be critical against our team, I'm pointing out what it will look like from the other side of the table. IF and that's a capital IF they are presented with an argument from Stan that his organization will be more successful, he won't be able to back that up at all. Not with any kind of facts. He can trump the Raiders, but he's got no shot at SD.

Or.... you may be looking at what has transpired since Stan actually took over as majority owner. Taking a team that had been a laughing stock and turning it into a team that is being talked about as a very good team in by far the toughest division in the NFL. That versus SD and the Spanos family that always seems to do just enough to be a middling team - always the bridesmaid - never the bride.

Keep in mind that Stan has only had his people in place for a few years now. If the NFL is going to look at who is doing what to build a team, are they going to look at the team prior to Stan buying out Georgia's shares? I wouldn't think so. Why would they?

So in that vein, yeah, he has every shot at winning that contest.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Are you suggesting this isn't 433 pages of everyone talking about how I'm right and how amazed they are about how right I am? I guess I should start reading some of the posts in here..

I don't know if you're right... but you are one of the most tenacious (I mean that in a good way) people I have ever "met".

I think you've mentioned you're military (or ex-military)... man, I'd want you in my bunker!

 

[OldSchool]

This really isn't anything to do with the original argument. Which was that Stan is supposed to have been making the point that his organization is the best to make LA work. It has nothing to do with how we feel about our team, the point being made is that IF he is indeed making that argument it's weak. The numbers don't lie. The Chargers have been much better than us, it's true. The other owners aren't paying attention to how our 2-4 round OL rookies look good, or that Rivers is in a contract year. If one of them actually cares enough to look at our roster they'll see big hopes pinned on unheralded rookies shoulders and a question mark QB. If they watch the SD Rams game they'll see one team who made plays when they had to and one that self destructed. I very much doubt division strength will be brought up. Who amongst the owners will care? And why would they? I'm not saying this to be critical against our team, I'm pointing out what it will look like from the other side of the table. IF and that's a capital IF they are presented with an argument from Stan that his organization will be more successful, he won't be able to back that up at all. Not with any kind of facts. He can trump the Raiders, but he's got no shot at SD.

I may be looking at Stans comments from a different angle but I read them as the Rams will be more able to make LA work for off the field as well as on the field issues. Meaning he's more of a business man to make the market work for the NFL and his team. Again I guess I'm looking at it differently but when I saw that attributed to Stan I looked at it as an organization/business entity. Not an on the field product.

 

[RamFan503]

But one of them-us-isn't average. I'm sorry but we aren't yet. They're going to see one team whose done okay, been competitive, and been to the playoffs. An then they are going to see two teams who have been in a heated competition to see whose not going to be the losingest team in NFL history. Its a sad fact. Unpleasant for us, but it's the truth. Business owners look at trends. And we trend poorly from that perspective. I think Stan needs to focus on the financial and building speed side of it if he wants to make a compelling case. He can argue that, he can argue that he's still got fans in LA. But the business success story narrative is DOA IMO.

Guess that depends on your time line. His business success story is long and varied outside of the NFL. Didn't Arsenal just win that cup again? Also, he did not have decision making authority until he bought out Georgia's shares. You really think the NFL is going to point to Stan when considering the aweful Rams team? Or are they going to look at what they are becoming in such a short period?

 

[bluecoconuts]

But one of them-us-isn't average. I'm sorry but we aren't yet. They're going to see one team whose done okay, been competitive, and been to the playoffs. An then they are going to see two teams who have been in a heated competition to see whose not going to be the losingest team in NFL history. Its a sad fact. Unpleasant for us, but it's the truth. Business owners look at trends. And we trend poorly from that perspective. I think Stan needs to focus on the financial and building speed side of it if he wants to make a compelling case. He can argue that, he can argue that he's still got fans in LA. But the business success story narrative is DOA IMO.

You don't think we're an average team? We've gone 7-8-1, 7-9, 6-10 the last three years, that seems pretty average to me. Especially since most of the posters here point out that we would have won a few extra games if not for bad calls, which would stick us right at .500... Seems average to me..

 

[bluecoconuts]

I don't know if you're right... but you are one of the most tenacious (I mean that in a good way) people I have ever "met".

I think you've mentioned you're military (or ex-military)... man, I'd want you in my bunker!

Well the Ranger creed does say that Surrender is not a Ranger word.

 

[Angry Ram]

Yeah. That's why I said the Chargers were better.... They're still average, but they're a better average.

I don't think San Diego really knows how to build a constant winner either, they hardly get it done in the playoffs, and that is pretty important. Better than us? Sure, but they're not a powerhouse team, and there's no use pretending they are. We're both pretty close with a bit of an edge to San Diego. Our last game against them was a good demonstration on that. Before that, we smoked em if I recall correctly.

They had a chance to be. But Nate Kaeding missed FGs (against the Jets) and never really recovered. If he had made those, with LT that team would've been in the SB.

 

[Rmfnlt]

I know it wasn't your quote, I was commenting on Randy's quote.

What the Chargers did 3 or 4 or 5 years ago doesn't matter, it's what they do next year and the years after that. The Chargers have never really been that good, they had some some stretches here or there, but they could never really get over the hump. They're an average team.. The Raiders are in a mess from top to bottom and have been for a while. Rams are clawing themselves out of their hole but haven't quite made it yet. I'd say the Rams and Chargers are average, while the Raiders are poor as we stand right now.

Chargers:
2014 9-7
2013 9-7 (playoff appearance)
2012 7-9
2011 8-8
2010 9-7
42-38 (.525)

Raiders
2014 3-13
2013 4-12
2012 4-12
2011 8-8
2010 8-8
27 - 53 (.337)

Rams
2014 6-10
2013 7-9
2012 7-8-1
2011 2-14
2010 7-9
29-50-1 (.362)

Chargers seem consistent... consistently average.
Raiders are bad... and not making progress.
Rams are bad but making progress... but I wouldn't call them average yet.

 

[The Ripper]

Oh I totally think Carson will win out in the end

however I don't believe the NFL is going to prohibit two teams from playing in the pre-season only to later move them into the same division together

The Chargers and Raiders have the exact same problem and they're in the same division.

 

[iced]

The Chargers and Raiders have the exact same problem and they're in the same division.

Not even remotely close to what I'm talking about - the problem is having the Raiders and Niners in the same division (he suggested the Raiders move to the NFC West). The NFL isn't going to put two teams in the same division that have banned them from playing all together in the preseason due to fan violence.

 

[The Ripper]

I'm not saying this to be critical against our team, I'm pointing out what it will look like from the other side of the table. IF and that's a capital IF they are presented with an argument from Stan that his organization will be more successful, he won't be able to back that up at all. Not with any kind of facts. He can trump the Raiders, but he's got no shot at SD.

I think the LA market surveys will be the key for the Raiders and the Rams. Raiders had the most fans with the Rams coming in a very close 2nd and the Chargers a distant 3rd. The deciding factor will be what the surveys says about the corporate support for the individual teams.

 

[The Ripper]

Not even remotely close to what I'm talking about - the problem is having the Raiders and Niners in the same division (he suggested the Raiders move to the NFC West). The NFL isn't going to put two teams in the same division that have banned them from playing all together in the preseason due to fan violence.

Exactly the same for the Chargers and Raiders. They have extra security at all games because of the fighting and alcohol sales are limited during the games.