Yeah. 30th?

Here's the setup for the posted article. It's an ESPN Insider article that I don't have access to, but they introduce it this way:

"To project which NFL franchises are in the best shape for the next three seasons, we asked our panel of experts -- Louis Riddick, Mike Sando and Field Yates -- to rate each team on a scale of 0-100 in five categories: roster (excluding quarterback), quarterback, draft, front office and coaching.

After averaging the results from the panelists, each of the five categories was weighted to create the overall score -- roster (30 percent), quarterback (20 percent), draft (15 percent), front office (15 percent) and coaching (20 percent). The result is a comprehensive rankings based on how well each team is positioned for the future."

I'm not a big fan of Fisher. Some of the other coaching elements are ok by me, and some are unproven. I don't even have a big problem with rating our coaching staff dead last.

But at the same time, if you're going to rank the team overall 30th for the next 3 years, then it seems to me that you're saying they will be 30th in wins over that span of time. I don't see that.

The writer says it's hard to argue with history on that. No, it isn't. The Rams have been middle of the pack lately, not dregs of the league. As I've said before, the same history and reasoning that says Fisher won't take them to excellence also says they won't bottom out with him either.

I guess they're saying that 29 other teams have more hope to excel than the Rams do, because they agree with some of our posters that Fisher will never get it done.

I'm on the fence about that, but 30th seems way too harsh, given the Rams talent and youth.

Heh, they say "ESPN Insider's annual Future Power Rankings holds teams accountable to that priority."

Do you figure they'll hold themselves accountable to these rankings 3 years from now?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2016 07:46AM by Saguaro.