Some Howard Balzer
All posts originally from the Rampagers Listserve. Edited/formatted by zn.
what is hardly mentioned is that martz inherited vermiel's team and if you look at those drafts from 97-99 and see all the players that the rams signed and kept which were integral parts of the championship team, then it's easy to see that after vermiel left, the rams made horrible personnel decisions. it is well know that the person who was pulling the trigger on the rams drafts was mike martz.
BALZER: Martz made some personnel mistakes. However, to pin it all on him is ignoring other things that happened.
*Management saying they couldn't afford to sign London Fletcher.
*Management saying safeties shouldn't be high draft picks, so Jimmy Kennedy was selected instead of Troy Polamalu.
*Letting Grant Wistrom leave because of a $500,000-$1M difference in a signing bonus
Those are a couple that immediately come to mind. In addition, Martz wanted the club to hire a pro personnel director and they wouldn't. He did take some flyers on some guys (Crouch, Travis Scott) that didn't work. However, most of the later-round picks are done by the scouting department. Very rarely does a head coach have much say over those picks. There were also numerous good picks.
Whatever he did doesn't come close to the horrors of the drafts with Linehan/Zygmunt. That's more the reason than any why the team is where it is now. Look at successful teams and you will see players in that 5-8 experience range that came in the draft. But the Rams have hardly any of them (Jackson, Bartell). The 2006 and 2007 drafts were brutal for the Rams, especially '06 when they had five picks in the first three rounds and none are with the team. Only Dominique Byrd is even in the league, only because he was signed this week by the Redskins. But he has done nothing in the league.
offensive line intact in that game and the eagles knocked the snot out of bradford. eagles completing passes all over the field with both starting cornerbacks even before ron bartell went down in the 4th quarter. howard are making excuses for this guy.
BALZER: he Eagles completed passes all over the field? How many passes do you think they completed in that game? It was a whopping 14 of 32, less than 50 percent for an explosive 187 yards. Bradford was sacked four times, once in the first half, and more came when the Rams fell behind and had to pass more. That he had the snot knocked out of him is simply an exaggeration.
The bottom line to this main debate is that to ignore and dismiss injuries as also a factor is being blind, closed-minded or whatever word it is. Look at the Rams o-line from 1999-2001. Seven missed starts in three years and not many injuries at other positions. Dick Vermeil, on numerous occasions, has talked about how healthy that 1999 team was. Then, in 2002, there were numerous injuries, including on the line, and the Rams were 7-9. The next year they shored up the line, no one missed a start, there were fewer injuries elsewhere, and they were 12-4. Coincidence?
I have asked the question twice now, and you have refused to answer, so I get it that you just can't bring yourself to even acknowledge that injuries are a factor when a team loses, and a big help when a team stays healthy. Not just the Rams, but most teams. There can be exceptions, but generally the teams that stay healthiest do better. Most people that watch the game realize that it's a part of it.
I know the Packers from last year are usually seen as an exception, but the reality is they won one less game last season than the year before, they didn't win their division, lost to Detroit 7-3 in the 13th game of the season and were fortunate to get in the playoffs. They then got on a nice roll and won the Super Bowl. This year, they have been remarkably healthy, and they are undefeated. Again, is that coincidence?
Lovie Smith didn't make excuses about his quarterback situation. Of course, no one could ever say the Bears have been affected by losing their starting quarterback. After all, that would just be an excuse.
lovie smith has taken his team to 2 nfc championships, a superbowl, won divisions, and has his team ready to play each and every week despite injuries
BALZER: Curious what Lovie Smith's past has to do with the point I made. It's irrelevant to what they have experienced, losing Cutler and Forte. But those are excuses for what their offense has done, right?
Do you believe that injuries have any impact at all to what happens with NFL teams? Love to hear your answer.
the point made was that Lovie Smith has shown an ability to win as a NFL HC while Spags certainly hasn’t. Spags can’t coach a team that is even remotely competitive against good opponents. Part of that is the glaring lack of talent and injuries, but he’s not winning anyone over with his own HC abilities either.
BALZER: But the point about Lovie Smith had nothing to do with what he has achieved. I merely brought up the Bears because they were the first team that came to mind in regards to losing their quarterback. I figured that those that want to dismiss injuries must believe the Bears have been poorly coached the last couple games because mentioning the loss of Cutler and then Forte must only be an excuse. The debate wasn't about Spagnuolo vs. Smith. It was about the recurring comments by some that citing injuries is just an excuse and shouldn't be even considered as part of the reason why a team plays poorly.
Listen to any national analyst, including a guy like Tim Ryan who has done several Rams games, and they talk about the difficulty the Rams have faced with injuries. Is Tim Ryan an excuse-maker or just a former player who observes and provides his analysis?
The rams are really still paying the price of the bad personnel evaluations prior to Devaney and Spagnuolo taking control. Most winning organizations have a core of their own players with 4-8 years of experience. The Rams have hardly any of those, and are trying to win with a roster essentially built over three seasons with little help from what was there before.
The only reason Linehan has a better record is because he took over a better team that had Jackson, Bulger, Bruce, Holt and Pace, to name a few. Bulger passed for over 4,000 yards, Jackson led the league in yards from scrimmage, Holt and Bruce went over 1,000 yards, and they went 8-8.
you always make excuses for the rams and that is the way that it is. fans see the truth and know the truth.
BALZER: Fans know the truth. And there are numerous fans that understand that injuries are a factor. Not an excuse; just a part of the explanation of what has happened to this team.
But, generally, I'll ask this simple question. It goes beyond the Rams, and applies to the NFL. Let's see if you can give a straight answer: Do you believe injuries, or lack of injuries, have no impact on a team's performance. Yes, or no.
Injuries are part of it.The Rams were 7-9 last year. They have been trying to build the roster. A team that is average to begin with will be affected by numerous injuries than a team that is already good.
.ask the defending superbowl champs with 15 players on injured reserve last season how they overcame injuries?
BALZER: I checked Green Bay and San Francisco this morning, the two teams with the best record in the league, and they each have one notable player on IR. That's right ... one. As for the Packers last year, the 15 injuries were overstated. Many of those guys weren't top contributors. In fact, of the 15, only five are on the current team! But, they were a 10-6 team that almost didn't make the playoffs. This year, they have been extremely healthy, and they are a better team than last year.
Look at the Rams from 1999-2001. Very few injuries, especially on the offensive line. After Warner took over and the season started, no one missed any games once the season started except Tom Nutten, who missed two. That's it. On the entire offense, there were two missed games the entire season. Plus, they had all of the offseason to learn the system, and the one aspect you are incorrect on, is the system was reduced when Warner took over.Play fell off in some subsequent years for a variety of reasons, but there were also more injuries. I charted the offensive line injuries from 1999 through 2010, and it's startling the difference in performance of the team when the Rams were healthy on the line and when they weren't.
Do you believe 3 years is a good number to evaluate at? How do you feel on
starting over after 3 years?
BALZER: Look at teams like the Steelers have a consistent player development/evaluation program that is always selecting players that fit. And when Tomlin came in, he stayed with the defensive system that was there.
The timing has been bad for the Rams in this "rebuild," because the second year, the free agency rules changed and then this year was the lockout. The two years they had the No. 2 pick, the draft simply wasn't that strong at the top. It sure looked like things were improving entering this season, but then the team's two most productive offensive players are injured in the opener, and carnage hits the secondary. They compete for a half, but then don't have enough to stay with better teams. Three years can be enough to evaluate, but it makes it difficult when things happen out of your control.
your whole theory on offensive line stability is neat, however all one has to do is too look at the steelers last season, who lost starters all over the line and had to resort to backups throughout the season yet went to the superbowl to refute his theory.
injuries are just an excuse.
BALZER: Offense is mostly about continuity and timing. When the pieces are constantly changing, it's difficult to have consistency. They have had flashes of good offensive play and games where the offense moved the ball, but couldn't score.
Jackson goes out on the first play of the opener, and then Amendola was lost. He was Bradford's key checkdown/short yardage outlet guy, and his replacement was Salas, who struggled in the game against the Giants, but he started coming on in that role and actually has a better average per catch than Amendola. Then he got hurt. Yes, the line struggled, but they did a good job run blocking, but early games got so out of hand that the pass rush was a jail break, and the line couldn't hold up.
I do agree there have been coaching issues, no question. But a good amount of them were created by the ever-changing cast. Lloyd arrives and plays with two quarterbacks in his first four games. Alexander becomes a starter, is averaging over 18 yards a catch, and he gets hurt.
But, always, it's never one thing, whether a teams wins or loses. What always amazes me are those that just want to dismiss injuries as a factor. Ask anyone in the NFL or understands the NFL, and they will all agree that offensive line stability is very important in having a consistent offense. It's not a "theory" that you imply I invented.
But, the real funny part is that you are wrong in your assessment of the Steelers. They had three players on the line that started all but one game. At left tackle, they lost Max Starks, and a backup, Jonathan Scott started the last eight games and the playoffs. At right guard, Ramon Foster started the last eight games and the playoffs. So, the reality and the facts, are that the same line started the entire second half of the season and the playoffs. That's quite a bit different than your off-base claim that they lost starters all over the line.
The other reality, obviously, is the Steelers are a much better team than the Rams. better teams can withstand injuries better. That's fairly obvious.
spags had pictures removed at the facility, including the one of ricky proehl in the nfc championship game against tampa bay.
BALZER: The only photos taken down of past Rams was in the team meeting room. There are photos of past Rams in many other parts of the building. There are numerous pictures at the facility of past Rams.
the rams need to go with an experienced head coach who has a winning background and pedigree, the rams need to go with an experienced head coach who has a winning background and pedigree, preferably in the nfl. enough of offensive/defensive coordinators and rising stars. linehan was a "rising star" and so was spags.
BALZER: And so was Mike Tomlin and Tony Dungy and Mike McCarthy and John Harbaugh and Lovie Smith and Rex Ryan and ... the list goes on and on. Plus, every one of the experienced guys that people want was a first-time coach at one point. What have the Redskins done with the winning coaches they hired? Currently, 24 teams in the NFL are coached by first-time head coaches. Thirteen have winning records. Of the eight other teams, four currently have winning records.
I would love to see Chucky (Gruden), but doubt we'd be able to get him
BALZER: Check out Gruden's record after the Super Bowl year.
