Steven Jackson happy Jeff Fisher doesn't need training

[Ram Quixote]

What you're saying is that, because the opponent took advantage of a rookie QB's inexperience, in a situation that hadn't come up all season, that's on the coaching staff? To some degree, perhaps, but not to the extent that they weren't intending to run Jackson.

I watched the game too, and the loss was the result of player execution more than anything. IMO, some of what your applying here is hindsight of 2011, which has nothing to do with analyzing the game in Seattle, 2010.

See that's how I felt watching that game. That team had a thin margin for error and really wasn't a 7 win team. But they got the most out of what they had--till then. In Seattle, they pushed that margin...and it came down to execution. Execution broke a little in that game. I suppose it's no surprise that Seattle is the place where that would happen, being such a hard place to play on the road.

I remember after the game there was a vigorous discussion around the net about how they kept audibling out of runs (as opposed to them not calling runs from the sideline).

No see, here's where I disagree completely. You don't win 7 games if you aren't a 7 win team. You don't win 7 flukes. Maybe a couple, here or there based on lucky bounces or ref calls or a timely pick 6. 2 wins 2 to 7 wins isn't flukey.

They easily could've had 3 more Ws (against Oakland, Tampa, @ SF) had they made a couple more plays or the refs actually let them play football.

Anyway, regardless of what happened in the past, I just want these coaches 2 not overthink and use their best players. Not get cute, just smash it in w/ SJack or Pead now.

I have a different take on that. IMO, I don't label teams by their optimum number of wins. There isn't that much difference between mediocre teams and bad teams, or good teams and mediocre teams.

Recall the '98 Rams, who were mostly competitive but couldn't seem to turn the corner (mostly because of the offense), or the '09 Rams, who had opportunities to win 3-4 additional games but didn't. Most of those losses came down to the context of the plays, and yet there was one marked difference between the teams of the next year in both cases: confidence.

You play the game to win, but sometimes a stink of doubt undermines you before the first kickoff. The Rams of 2010 didn't doubt, thus they were going to win more games than anyone thought possible. They also lost some winnable games.

Even though the experts thought the 2010 Rams would win 4-5 games, you just can't predict what a young team will do. Winning 7 and almost winning 4 others (the first AZ game) isn't so much an achievement, nor is it a fluke. That team, no matter how much we'd like to think it, wasn't ready for the playoffs. Which isn't to say I think they would've lost to the Saints the next week.

 

[Anonymous]

No see, here's where I disagree completely. You don't win 7 games if you aren't a 7 win team. You don't win 7 flukes.

It's just a way of speaking.

There's the record and there's the preseason evaluation of talent.

If there's a disceprancy you have to explain it.

Before the season they were a 4-12, 5-11 team...on paper, just judging talent. That's accounting for the schedule, too. And of course I wasn't alone in thinking that.

Where did the extra 2-3 wins come from. Well, not flukes. I don't think anyone would say that.

There will be different views but I think the extra 2-3 wins came from coaching.

They had a rookie qb, Amendola, and no Jackson once it was clear he wasn't himself. But they packaged it up to get what they could out of what they had.

But when execution broke down against the Seattle, it didn't surprise me at all. I was sorta surprised it didn't happen more often. They just did not have the horses to mess around with execution issues like that.

 

[-X-]

Yawn.

I'll have you all know that I'm having wings and a lively conversation with Leroy Hoard at the moment at my daughter's baby shower.

Beats the hell out of a previous regime knitting circle, wouldn't you say?



Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Anonymous]

Yawn.

I'll have you all know that I'm having wings and a lively conversation with Leroy Hoard at the moment at my daughter's baby shower.

Beats the hell out of a previous regime knitting circle, wouldn't you say?



Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Not for me. I love talking about history of any kind. You should see me on history boards.

 

[Thordaddy]

Yawn.

I'll have you all know that I'm having wings and a lively conversation with Leroy Hoard at the moment at my daughter's baby shower.

Beats the hell out of a previous regime knitting circle, wouldn't you say?



Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Grandchildren are great ,I took mine to the lake for three days this week and family beats football any day,family and wings,even better.

Don't know if you saw this, but I bought the Big Lebowski video and laughed my ass off ,gonna watch it again tonight, Goodman is priceless

 

[-X-]

Yawn.

I'll have you all know that I'm having wings and a lively conversation with Leroy Hoard at the moment at my daughter's baby shower.

Beats the hell out of a previous regime knitting circle, wouldn't you say?



Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Grandchildren are great ,I took mine to the lake for three days this week and family beats football any day,family and wings,even better.

Don't know if you saw this, but I bought the Big Lebowski video and laughed my ass off ,gonna watch it again tonight, Goodman is priceless

That's not a movie. It's a way of life.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Thordaddy]

Yawn.

I'll have you all know that I'm having wings and a lively conversation with Leroy Hoard at the moment at my daughter's baby shower.

Beats the hell out of a previous regime knitting circle, wouldn't you say?



Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Grandchildren are great ,I took mine to the lake for three days this week and family beats football any day,family and wings,even better.

Don't know if you saw this, but I bought the Big Lebowski video and laughed my ass off ,gonna watch it again tonight, Goodman is priceless

That's not a movie. It's a way of life.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

One I think Thor could easily refine to an art form,although his dudeness would still be the master.
I LOVE the way he always smells the half and half for his "caucasians".

 

[Angry Ram]

What you're saying is that, because the opponent took advantage of a rookie QB's inexperience, in a situation that hadn't come up all season, that's on the coaching staff? To some degree, perhaps, but not to the extent that they weren't intending to run Jackson.

I watched the game too, and the loss was the result of player execution more than anything. IMO, some of what your applying here is hindsight of 2011, which has nothing to do with analyzing the game in Seattle, 2010.

See that's how I felt watching that game. That team had a thin margin for error and really wasn't a 7 win team. But they got the most out of what they had--till then. In Seattle, they pushed that margin...and it came down to execution. Execution broke a little in that game. I suppose it's no surprise that Seattle is the place where that would happen, being such a hard place to play on the road.

I remember after the game there was a vigorous discussion around the net about how they kept audibling out of runs (as opposed to them not calling runs from the sideline).

No see, here's where I disagree completely. You don't win 7 games if you aren't a 7 win team. You don't win 7 flukes. Maybe a couple, here or there based on lucky bounces or ref calls or a timely pick 6. 2 wins 2 to 7 wins isn't flukey.

They easily could've had 3 more Ws (against Oakland, Tampa, @ SF) had they made a couple more plays or the refs actually let them play football.

Anyway, regardless of what happened in the past, I just want these coaches 2 not overthink and use their best players. Not get cute, just smash it in w/ SJack or Pead now.

I have a different take on that. IMO, I don't label teams by their optimum number of wins. There isn't that much difference between mediocre teams and bad teams, or good teams and mediocre teams.

Recall the '98 Rams, who were mostly competitive but couldn't seem to turn the corner (mostly because of the offense), or the '09 Rams, who had opportunities to win 3-4 additional games but didn't. Most of those losses came down to the context of the plays, and yet there was one marked difference between the teams of the next year in both cases: confidence.

You play the game to win, but sometimes a stink of doubt undermines you before the first kickoff. The Rams of 2010 didn't doubt, thus they were going to win more games than anyone thought possible. They also lost some winnable games.

Even though the experts thought the 2010 Rams would win 4-5 games, you just can't predict what a young team will do. Winning 7 and almost winning 4 others (the first AZ game) isn't so much an achievement, nor is it a fluke. That team, no matter how much we'd like to think it, wasn't ready for the playoffs. Which isn't to say I think they would've lost to the Saints the next week.

Playoffs? It would've been nice. And who knows, we could've beaten the Saints. I just don't like the idea of downplaying a team accomplishments, saying they aren't really a 7 win team. Well they proved otherwise, most of the wins had a good margin of victory.

That same Seattle team that beat us, the Rams pounded them @ home.

 

[Anonymous]

What you're saying is that, because the opponent took advantage of a rookie QB's inexperience, in a situation that hadn't come up all season, that's on the coaching staff? To some degree, perhaps, but not to the extent that they weren't intending to run Jackson.

I watched the game too, and the loss was the result of player execution more than anything. IMO, some of what your applying here is hindsight of 2011, which has nothing to do with analyzing the game in Seattle, 2010.

See that's how I felt watching that game. That team had a thin margin for error and really wasn't a 7 win team. But they got the most out of what they had--till then. In Seattle, they pushed that margin...and it came down to execution. Execution broke a little in that game. I suppose it's no surprise that Seattle is the place where that would happen, being such a hard place to play on the road.

I remember after the game there was a vigorous discussion around the net about how they kept audibling out of runs (as opposed to them not calling runs from the sideline).

No see, here's where I disagree completely. You don't win 7 games if you aren't a 7 win team. You don't win 7 flukes. Maybe a couple, here or there based on lucky bounces or ref calls or a timely pick 6. 2 wins 2 to 7 wins isn't flukey.

They easily could've had 3 more Ws (against Oakland, Tampa, @ SF) had they made a couple more plays or the refs actually let them play football.

Anyway, regardless of what happened in the past, I just want these coaches 2 not overthink and use their best players. Not get cute, just smash it in w/ SJack or Pead now.

I have a different take on that. IMO, I don't label teams by their optimum number of wins. There isn't that much difference between mediocre teams and bad teams, or good teams and mediocre teams.

Recall the '98 Rams, who were mostly competitive but couldn't seem to turn the corner (mostly because of the offense), or the '09 Rams, who had opportunities to win 3-4 additional games but didn't. Most of those losses came down to the context of the plays, and yet there was one marked difference between the teams of the next year in both cases: confidence.

You play the game to win, but sometimes a stink of doubt undermines you before the first kickoff. The Rams of 2010 didn't doubt, thus they were going to win more games than anyone thought possible. They also lost some winnable games.

Even though the experts thought the 2010 Rams would win 4-5 games, you just can't predict what a young team will do. Winning 7 and almost winning 4 others (the first AZ game) isn't so much an achievement, nor is it a fluke. That team, no matter how much we'd like to think it, wasn't ready for the playoffs. Which isn't to say I think they would've lost to the Saints the next week.

Playoffs? It would've been nice. And who knows, we could've beaten the Saints. I just don't like the idea of downplaying a team accomplishments, saying they aren't really a 7 win team. Well they proved otherwise, most of the wins had a good margin of victory.

That same Seattle team that beat us, the Rams pounded them @ home.

I didn't downgrade them I praised them.

Saying a 4-12, 5-11 level team in terms of talent went 7-9 is to praise them for playing over their heads. It speaks well to their heart and their moxie. It says good things about the coaching. I was proud of them for doing that.

BUT I (and many many others) evaluated them as a 4-12/5-11 talent level team BEFORE they even lost Clayton and before it became clear Jackson wasn't himself. So it's even more of an accomplishment.

 

[Angry Ram]

What you're saying is that, because the opponent took advantage of a rookie QB's inexperience, in a situation that hadn't come up all season, that's on the coaching staff? To some degree, perhaps, but not to the extent that they weren't intending to run Jackson.

I watched the game too, and the loss was the result of player execution more than anything. IMO, some of what your applying here is hindsight of 2011, which has nothing to do with analyzing the game in Seattle, 2010.

See that's how I felt watching that game. That team had a thin margin for error and really wasn't a 7 win team. But they got the most out of what they had--till then. In Seattle, they pushed that margin...and it came down to execution. Execution broke a little in that game. I suppose it's no surprise that Seattle is the place where that would happen, being such a hard place to play on the road.

I remember after the game there was a vigorous discussion around the net about how they kept audibling out of runs (as opposed to them not calling runs from the sideline).

No see, here's where I disagree completely. You don't win 7 games if you aren't a 7 win team. You don't win 7 flukes. Maybe a couple, here or there based on lucky bounces or ref calls or a timely pick 6. 2 wins 2 to 7 wins isn't flukey.

They easily could've had 3 more Ws (against Oakland, Tampa, @ SF) had they made a couple more plays or the refs actually let them play football.

Anyway, regardless of what happened in the past, I just want these coaches 2 not overthink and use their best players. Not get cute, just smash it in w/ SJack or Pead now.

I have a different take on that. IMO, I don't label teams by their optimum number of wins. There isn't that much difference between mediocre teams and bad teams, or good teams and mediocre teams.

Recall the '98 Rams, who were mostly competitive but couldn't seem to turn the corner (mostly because of the offense), or the '09 Rams, who had opportunities to win 3-4 additional games but didn't. Most of those losses came down to the context of the plays, and yet there was one marked difference between the teams of the next year in both cases: confidence.

You play the game to win, but sometimes a stink of doubt undermines you before the first kickoff. The Rams of 2010 didn't doubt, thus they were going to win more games than anyone thought possible. They also lost some winnable games.

Even though the experts thought the 2010 Rams would win 4-5 games, you just can't predict what a young team will do. Winning 7 and almost winning 4 others (the first AZ game) isn't so much an achievement, nor is it a fluke. That team, no matter how much we'd like to think it, wasn't ready for the playoffs. Which isn't to say I think they would've lost to the Saints the next week.

Playoffs? It would've been nice. And who knows, we could've beaten the Saints. I just don't like the idea of downplaying a team accomplishments, saying they aren't really a 7 win team. Well they proved otherwise, most of the wins had a good margin of victory.

That same Seattle team that beat us, the Rams pounded them @ home.

I didn't downgrade them I praised them.

Saying a 4-12, 5-11 level team in terms of talent went 7-9 is to praise them for playing over their heads. It speaks well to their heart and their moxie. It says good things about the coaching. I was proud of them for doing that.

BUT I (and many many others) evaluated them as a 4-12/5-11 talent level team BEFORE they even lost Clayton and before it became clear Jackson wasn't himself. So it's even more of an accomplishment.

To me it rubs me the wrong way when someone says that. No one knows a teams future record and the talent line is very thin b/w teams. I really believe that. Anywho, again it's in the past, and as Pumbaa so eloquently put it: "You gotta put your behind in your past."

 

[Thordaddy]

Angry Ram observed

"Playoffs? It would've been nice. And who knows, we could've beaten the Saints. I just don't like the idea of downplaying a team accomplishments, saying they aren't really a 7 win team. Well they proved otherwise, most of the wins had a good margin of victory.

That same Seattle team that beat us, the Rams pounded them @ home."

And by THAT measure,IMO we were the better team,but got outcoached.

We were more a playoff ready team than the Seahawks at that time,not that THEY were all that,but I just reject the idea that you don't gain the very confidence and even a little sting from going one and out it takes to make NEXT years team work harder in the off season and come back with the added impetus to compensate for a little worse draft position.
The hardest off season workers I have on my team are the guys who have been to the state tournament and have the expectation of returning, every team is "ready" for that confidence boost/challenge.
IMO if he'd WON that game ,Spags would still have the job and this thread wouldn't exist,and he'd have won it if he'd given the rock to SJ.
JMO but ya gotta carpe diem,cuz you NEVER KNOW when a season like this one is gonna bite you.

 

[Anonymous]

What you're saying is that, because the opponent took advantage of a rookie QB's inexperience, in a situation that hadn't come up all season, that's on the coaching staff? To some degree, perhaps, but not to the extent that they weren't intending to run Jackson.

I watched the game too, and the loss was the result of player execution more than anything. IMO, some of what your applying here is hindsight of 2011, which has nothing to do with analyzing the game in Seattle, 2010.

See that's how I felt watching that game. That team had a thin margin for error and really wasn't a 7 win team. But they got the most out of what they had--till then. In Seattle, they pushed that margin...and it came down to execution. Execution broke a little in that game. I suppose it's no surprise that Seattle is the place where that would happen, being such a hard place to play on the road.

I remember after the game there was a vigorous discussion around the net about how they kept audibling out of runs (as opposed to them not calling runs from the sideline).

No see, here's where I disagree completely. You don't win 7 games if you aren't a 7 win team. You don't win 7 flukes. Maybe a couple, here or there based on lucky bounces or ref calls or a timely pick 6. 2 wins 2 to 7 wins isn't flukey.

They easily could've had 3 more Ws (against Oakland, Tampa, @ SF) had they made a couple more plays or the refs actually let them play football.

Anyway, regardless of what happened in the past, I just want these coaches 2 not overthink and use their best players. Not get cute, just smash it in w/ SJack or Pead now.

I have a different take on that. IMO, I don't label teams by their optimum number of wins. There isn't that much difference between mediocre teams and bad teams, or good teams and mediocre teams.

Recall the '98 Rams, who were mostly competitive but couldn't seem to turn the corner (mostly because of the offense), or the '09 Rams, who had opportunities to win 3-4 additional games but didn't. Most of those losses came down to the context of the plays, and yet there was one marked difference between the teams of the next year in both cases: confidence.

You play the game to win, but sometimes a stink of doubt undermines you before the first kickoff. The Rams of 2010 didn't doubt, thus they were going to win more games than anyone thought possible. They also lost some winnable games.

Even though the experts thought the 2010 Rams would win 4-5 games, you just can't predict what a young team will do. Winning 7 and almost winning 4 others (the first AZ game) isn't so much an achievement, nor is it a fluke. That team, no matter how much we'd like to think it, wasn't ready for the playoffs. Which isn't to say I think they would've lost to the Saints the next week.

Playoffs? It would've been nice. And who knows, we could've beaten the Saints. I just don't like the idea of downplaying a team accomplishments, saying they aren't really a 7 win team. Well they proved otherwise, most of the wins had a good margin of victory.

That same Seattle team that beat us, the Rams pounded them @ home.

I didn't downgrade them I praised them.

Saying a 4-12, 5-11 level team in terms of talent went 7-9 is to praise them for playing over their heads. It speaks well to their heart and their moxie. It says good things about the coaching. I was proud of them for doing that.

BUT I (and many many others) evaluated them as a 4-12/5-11 talent level team BEFORE they even lost Clayton and before it became clear Jackson wasn't himself. So it's even more of an accomplishment.

To me it rubs me the wrong way when someone says that. No one knows a teams future record and the talent line is very thin b/w teams. I really believe that. Anywho, again it's in the past, and as Pumbaa so eloquently put it: "You gotta put your behind in your past."

No one claims "to know their future record." You';re taking something literally that is not literal. Honestly, it's as if I said "hey, bro!" and you replied by saying "actually we're not blood relations." And those kinds of discussions are really just efforts to assess a team, again for discussions sake. One convenient way to do that is to just give them a "win projection." It's not even the same as guessing the record. It's saying "how is this team in terms of talent, how does it look." It's interesting to see if they exceed it (and why) or fall short (and why.)

And the way I saw 2010, it was a 4-12, 5-11 level TALENT team (with a lot of youth at key spots) that, for a lot of interesting reasons, played better than that. Before this season starts, when I get a better handle on THIS team I will be in "win projections" discussions then, too. And at the end of the season I will see if they meet, exceed, or fall short of their talent projection. It all makes for interesting conversation.

One of the reasons I never read too much into the Seattle game is because I never thought they had the talent to be in a division title match. So rather than seeing them as having fallen short, I saw them as having exceeded expectations that season in the first place.

 

[RamFan503]

No one claims "to know their future record." You';re taking something literally that is not literal. Honestly, it's as if I said "hey, bro!" and you replied by saying "actually we're not blood relations." And those kinds of discussions are really just efforts to assess a team, again for discussions sake. One convenient way to do that is to just give them a "win projection." It's not even the same as guessing the record. It's saying "how is this team in terms of talent, how does it look." It's interesting to see if they exceed it (and why) or fall short (and why.)

And the way I saw 2010, it was a 4-12, 5-11 level TALENT team (with a lot of youth at key spots) that, for a lot of interesting reasons, played better than that. Before this season starts, when I get a better handle on THIS team I will be in "win projections" discussions then, too. And at the end of the season I will see if they meet, exceed, or fall short of their talent projection. It all makes for interesting conversation.

One of the reasons I never read too much into the Seattle game is because I never thought they had the talent to be in a division title match. So rather than seeing them as having fallen short, I saw them as having exceeded expectations that season in the first place.

You know I don't agree with you on a lot of things (not that it matters or should matter) but this makes perfect sense to me. It's a fair thing to do to look at a team's talent and project what you think they are capable of. I think we all do it. Sometimes we end up talking in circles because we think someone is saying something they're not. Such is the beast known as the internet.

Oh... and I ain't yo bro, bro. :7up:

 

[Anonymous]

No one claims "to know their future record." You';re taking something literally that is not literal. Honestly, it's as if I said "hey, bro!" and you replied by saying "actually we're not blood relations." And those kinds of discussions are really just efforts to assess a team, again for discussions sake. One convenient way to do that is to just give them a "win projection." It's not even the same as guessing the record. It's saying "how is this team in terms of talent, how does it look." It's interesting to see if they exceed it (and why) or fall short (and why.)

And the way I saw 2010, it was a 4-12, 5-11 level TALENT team (with a lot of youth at key spots) that, for a lot of interesting reasons, played better than that. Before this season starts, when I get a better handle on THIS team I will be in "win projections" discussions then, too. And at the end of the season I will see if they meet, exceed, or fall short of their talent projection. It all makes for interesting conversation.

One of the reasons I never read too much into the Seattle game is because I never thought they had the talent to be in a division title match. So rather than seeing them as having fallen short, I saw them as having exceeded expectations that season in the first place.

You know I don't agree with you on a lot of things (not that it matters or should matter) but this makes perfect sense to me. It's a fair thing to do to look at a team's talent and project what you think they are capable of. I think we all do it. Sometimes we end up talking in circles because we think someone is saying something they're not. Such is the beast known as the internet.

Oh... and I ain't yo bro, bro. :7up:

We agree on a great number of things.

So, I disagree with that statement.

:mrgreen:

 

[RamFan503]

No one claims "to know their future record." You';re taking something literally that is not literal. Honestly, it's as if I said "hey, bro!" and you replied by saying "actually we're not blood relations." And those kinds of discussions are really just efforts to assess a team, again for discussions sake. One convenient way to do that is to just give them a "win projection." It's not even the same as guessing the record. It's saying "how is this team in terms of talent, how does it look." It's interesting to see if they exceed it (and why) or fall short (and why.)

And the way I saw 2010, it was a 4-12, 5-11 level TALENT team (with a lot of youth at key spots) that, for a lot of interesting reasons, played better than that. Before this season starts, when I get a better handle on THIS team I will be in "win projections" discussions then, too. And at the end of the season I will see if they meet, exceed, or fall short of their talent projection. It all makes for interesting conversation.

One of the reasons I never read too much into the Seattle game is because I never thought they had the talent to be in a division title match. So rather than seeing them as having fallen short, I saw them as having exceeded expectations that season in the first place.

You know I don't agree with you on a lot of things (not that it matters or should matter) but this makes perfect sense to me. It's a fair thing to do to look at a team's talent and project what you think they are capable of. I think we all do it. Sometimes we end up talking in circles because we think someone is saying something they're not. Such is the beast known as the internet.

Oh... and I ain't yo bro, bro. :7up:

We agree on a great number of things.

So, I disagree with that statement.

:mrgreen:

Nuh uh. :razzed:

 

[Anonymous]

No one claims "to know their future record." You';re taking something literally that is not literal. Honestly, it's as if I said "hey, bro!" and you replied by saying "actually we're not blood relations." And those kinds of discussions are really just efforts to assess a team, again for discussions sake. One convenient way to do that is to just give them a "win projection." It's not even the same as guessing the record. It's saying "how is this team in terms of talent, how does it look." It's interesting to see if they exceed it (and why) or fall short (and why.)

And the way I saw 2010, it was a 4-12, 5-11 level TALENT team (with a lot of youth at key spots) that, for a lot of interesting reasons, played better than that. Before this season starts, when I get a better handle on THIS team I will be in "win projections" discussions then, too. And at the end of the season I will see if they meet, exceed, or fall short of their talent projection. It all makes for interesting conversation.

One of the reasons I never read too much into the Seattle game is because I never thought they had the talent to be in a division title match. So rather than seeing them as having fallen short, I saw them as having exceeded expectations that season in the first place.

You know I don't agree with you on a lot of things (not that it matters or should matter) but this makes perfect sense to me. It's a fair thing to do to look at a team's talent and project what you think they are capable of. I think we all do it. Sometimes we end up talking in circles because we think someone is saying something they're not. Such is the beast known as the internet.

Oh... and I ain't yo bro, bro. :7up:

We agree on a great number of things.

So, I disagree with that statement.

:mrgreen:

Nuh uh. :razzed:

Honestly, all I know is, I read your posts, and agree with a lot of them. I don't have any notion of who you are beyond that, and I don't know what I will find before I read a post. I just know what I see when I look. Doesn't go beyond that for me.

 

[Thordaddy]

No one claims "to know their future record." You';re taking something literally that is not literal. Honestly, it's as if I said "hey, bro!" and you replied by saying "actually we're not blood relations." And those kinds of discussions are really just efforts to assess a team, again for discussions sake. One convenient way to do that is to just give them a "win projection." It's not even the same as guessing the record. It's saying "how is this team in terms of talent, how does it look." It's interesting to see if they exceed it (and why) or fall short (and why.)

And the way I saw 2010, it was a 4-12, 5-11 level TALENT team (with a lot of youth at key spots) that, for a lot of interesting reasons, played better than that. Before this season starts, when I get a better handle on THIS team I will be in "win projections" discussions then, too. And at the end of the season I will see if they meet, exceed, or fall short of their talent projection. It all makes for interesting conversation.

One of the reasons I never read too much into the Seattle game is because I never thought they had the talent to be in a division title match. So rather than seeing them as having fallen short, I saw them as having exceeded expectations that season in the first place.

You know I don't agree with you on a lot of things (not that it matters or should matter) but this makes perfect sense to me. It's a fair thing to do to look at a team's talent and project what you think they are capable of. I think we all do it. Sometimes we end up talking in circles because we think someone is saying something they're not. Such is the beast known as the internet.

Oh... and I ain't yo bro, bro. :7up:

But they were in a division title game,so that opinion was invalidated,so FROM there I guess if your opinion is more important than winning that game ,it's how you feal. But the fact is that they were talented enough to be there HAD beaten the other team earlier pretty soundly and by that time the "rookie QB" isn't supposed to be a rookie anymore,he's ONE game short of being a second year veteran and solidly in the offense.
The reports that Carroll outfoxed Shurmer and Spags in that game are irrespective of talent level.
However IF the talent level is the determinate for you it's absolutely clear they HAD the talent to WIN THAT game.
So what cost them the game? And since this thread is about or supposed to be about SJ's opinion whadya suppose he thinks cost them that game? I think he's telling us in the most diplomatic way he can find.
I'd shudder to think we'd hear the we didn't belong there argument if that had been a Super Bowl.
Nah Spags let a golden opportunity slip through his fingers and btw the philosophical approach to that loss could have easily cost that team some of it's "edge" this year.
I won't ever be OK with a loss in any game we should win,if we're outclassed OK,but we weren't ,we were out coached.

 

[RamFan503]

Honestly, all I know is, I read your posts, and agree with a lot of them. I don't have any notion of who you are beyond that, and I don't know what I will find before I read a post. I just know what I see when I look. Doesn't go beyond that for me.

Yeah - I'm just bustin' your balls. Quit taking me so literally. :sly:

 

[Anonymous]

Honestly, all I know is, I read your posts, and agree with a lot of them. I don't have any notion of who you are beyond that, and I don't know what I will find before I read a post. I just know what I see when I look. Doesn't go beyond that for me.

Yeah - I'm just bustin' your balls. Quit taking me so literally. :sly:

Well you better not mean "bustin balls" literally.

My impression is that would hurt.

 

[RamFan503]

But they were in a division title game,so that opinion was invalidated,so FROM there I guess if your opinion is more important than winning that game ,it's how you feal. But the fact is that they were talented enough to be there HAD beaten the other team earlier pretty soundly and by that time the "rookie QB" isn't supposed to be a rookie anymore,he's ONE game short of being a second year veteran and solidly in the offense.
The reports that Carroll outfoxed Shurmer and Spags in that game are irrespective of talent level.
However IF the talent level is the determinate for you it's absolutely clear they HAD the talent to WIN THAT game.
So what cost them the game? And since this thread is about or supposed to be about SJ's opinion whadya suppose he thinks cost them that game? I think he's telling us in the most diplomatic way he can find.
I'd shudder to think we'd hear the we didn't belong there argument if that had been a Super Bowl.
Nah Spags let a golden opportunity slip through his fingers and btw the philosophical approach to that loss could have easily cost that team some of it's "edge" this year.
I won't ever be OK with a loss in any game we should win,if we're outclassed OK,but we weren't ,we were out coached.

I wouldn't expect a player to say they didn't belong in ANY game - quite the opposite. Your opinion is that we had the talent to contend. I can accept that. I am a total homer so I tend to lean that way most of the time. I'm not even saying I agree with ZN's take on the '10 team. I just agree with what he said in defending his position. We can all see things like what went on in that season differently. I think in most cases it is a fine line between having the talent to contend and being an also ran. We definitely had some weaknesses on that team and with that staff. Does that mean I didn't think we should have won that Seattle game? Hell no. But that's my opinion. His is that we actually performed better that season than he thought we realistically should have given the talent level that he saw. I'm cool with that too.