STL-Rams said:
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about regarding [hl]Bidwell [/hl]and the football Cardinals. They moved due to not working out the stadium issue. Your blowing hot air with your comments on why they moved.
Who? Oh, you mean Bill Bidwill. I guess you're the expert when you don't even know how to spell his name. And if you think the NFL would allow any franchise to move that had good attendance then I think you're just arguing for arguing's sake. I don't think the city liked Bidwill much and I think that showed in various ways. One of which was not getting a deal done for a new stadium. But bad attendance is the out that all owners use as a reason for justifying to the league that a move is warranted.
I went back nine years because they've been the worst in the league the last nine and five of those were the worst ever. I'm sorry you don't like that I used nine years but there is nothing wrong with summing up what occurred over that period. I will make no apologies for it nor is there any reason to.
I'm glad you and ESPN think the same way. Unfortunately, I think ESPN is drek and don't even watch it.
No, I am not saying they are not showing up to Rams games because of the Cardinals. The divorce that anyone over 25 went through is but one factor. And it's very significant for many people. You aren't here so perhaps you don't (want to) understand.
Perhaps you don't realize you're communicating with someone who didn't "divorce" his team when they moved away. I think I have a fair understanding of what it's like to lose a team. But I haven't come across anyone who is still a Cardinals fan and just doesn't want to warm up to the Rams. Especially not on the principle that emotionally they just can't commit because the Rams might leave them too.
Yeah, the typical lame and inconsistent look at other teams. You want to look past the Steelers drawing poorly this year but not give any slack to Rams fans who have been hammered with a historicially poor product. And yes, the last 9 years have been historically poor. There is nothing to debate there.
I don't think comparing the Rams to other teams is lame or inconsistent. In fact, it's pretty much required. But I think your choice for comparison is absurd. You've taken 1 year from the Steelers and offered it as explanation for the Rams. Why not use the Jaguars? They always suck and generally outdraw the Rams. Let's also not forget the elements. Steelers fans outdrew...remember, you're hard-lining in this conversation, the Rams and they had to sit in the wind and weather.
Yet the Steelers are always good and go 8-8 this year, better than the Rams have went since 2004, and you don't want to give them any criticism for essentially drawing what St. Louis did after all these years of terrible football. Yeah, that makes sense. The Steelers had one or two bad years about 2000 as well and as soon as they dropped off at all they had several games that drew in the 30s or 40s.
Considering Pittsburgh's history and how well they represent at home and on the road, yes, I'm more inclined to cut them some slack for a down year. I also don't think it absolves them of any criticism. Dallas led the league in attendance and they continually disappoint their fans. Washington, NYG, NYJ, Green Bay...CLEVELAND, they all out-distanced the Rams in attendance and %capacity. No, you choosing to single out the Steelers fans seems like the thing that doesn't make sense. You have to really ignore everything else they've done to focus on this year alone. And this is all assuming that their attendance was down just because they were having an off year.
You said the fans dont' show up regardless of what they are doing. First off, attendance was up.
Up from what? They've been at 56,000+ each of the last 3 years and Fisher's only been here 2.
Secondly, you act as if they have done something good?
They've done plenty of good things.
They just posted yet another losing season in a city that has tons of people doubting if that team will even be here after next year. You are the one who seems a little less than objective.
I don't think so. I think I'm the one who's been downright objective to the reality of the situation. A) The Rams have done plenty to warrant attendance improving over what Spagnuolo's Rams were doing. B) St. Louis simply doesn't have the excuse of not knowing what poor attendance can lead to. Yet, they continue to not show up. Of course, that's a relative term. There are still thousands showing up but if the Rams are at the bottom of the league in attendance, that's an automatic free pass for Kroenke to leave.
Thirdly, the fans have been terrific considering the quality of the product and the stadium issue on top of that.
I think you continue to overstate. Cleveland fans have been "terrific". What have they won in the past, oh...50+ years? Even Jaguars fans have showed up more than Rams fans. How can you define them as "terrific"? How would you define Jaguars fans? And how is "quality of the product on the field" defined? Do the Rams or any NFL team guarantee a certain "quality" to the games they host? Or do they just guarantee one is going to get to see a game?
Finally, I posted the facts of what has occurred. People can draw their own conclusions. There is nothing 2 years too late about anything. THe last two years were part of the past nine and that past nine was the worst in the league. Not sure why that is hard to comprehend.
No one is having trouble comprehending it. They're just questioning why you chose it and when you chose to write about it.
I would agree that the arrow is pointing up. i am very optimistic that the St. Louis Rams are on the way to some terrific things and a very successful era in 2014 and beyond.
I know I'd rather read articles related to these thoughts.
Finally, your comment of the last nine years being "not so bad" is just absurd, in all due respect. Fans in 95% of NFL cities would die from laughing themselves to death if they heard that.
Perhaps my perception of things is just a little more involved than the cumulative W/L column. It seems as if it's being offered that being a Rams fan in St. Louis is somehow different than being a Rams fan somewhere else. Didn't the St. Louis fans also get a new owner? That's a major high point in my 30+ year history as a Rams fan. Whether one liked or disliked Georgia, Stan is an obvious improvement at least in terms of potential. The Rams also drafted a potential franchise QB. Heck, it was the first time since 1964 that they've even drafted one in the first round. Went out and "won" the Jeff Fisher sweepstakes. Jake Long too. Heck, even Spagnuolo if you want to get right down to it. Didn't turn out too well but he was the big name that year. They moved up to get Tavon, they pulled off the RGIII fleecing of Washington...I'm sure someone could make a really long list of the things that were at least good enough to get people to show up to an easy to get to stadium with rock bottom ticket prices.
As for Detroit, Cleveland, etc and their histories, all of those teams have stronger football histories with more playoff appearances than St. Louis does, so you are also wrong there.
Jacksonville. 4 different head coaches in the last 3 years, their star draft pick getting suspended indefinitely, NO offense, MJD always hurt, new owner because the old owner just wanted to sell(as opposed to dying and not having a choice), threats of the team moving and they still out drew the Rams. Not that I really agree with your rationale. Cleveland and Detroit may have rich histories but they haven't done much since they all started wearing facemasks. And Detroit's been one of the biggest disappointments this year and Cleveland's an utter joke in recent years.
