Quote
zn
Quote
Rams43
Quote
zn
Quote
Rams43
Tends to really dilute the "Fisher inherited a depleted roster" mantra as an excuse for mediocrity 5 years later....
Yeah that's a bad argument.
No one ever said he inherited a
depleted roster. I mean think about it...who WOULD say that. In fact he still has 6 guys from before 2012 while Carroll, for example, has none. (Which is partly because Fisher inherited better players than Carroll did).
So. Red herring.
The reason they weren't winning in 2013-2015 was (at different times in different ways)
line issues combined with
qb issues.
So going to war against the wrong "argument" doesn't do it for me.
As for 2016? Different story.
...
"Bad argument", zn? Nobody ever said Fisher inherited a depleted roster?
Are you SERIOUS?
We've been seeing that argument for years, man. Heck, it's even true! But it's NOT the reason that the Rams are 4-8 in '16.
According to the OP, only 4 players from the '11 Ram roster are still on the team.
But when examining the other teams, it becomes apparent that other, more successful teams have had similar, if not even more turnover. So, clearly, success (or the lack thereof) is not just about player turnover.
Raising issues such as OL injuries or QB shortcomings are merely distractions when considering a 5 year record. Other team FO's and HC's have faced their own fair share of challenges in the past 5 years. They obviously planned (and coached) better. They remain in the playoff conversation with 4 games remaining. The Rams are a laughingstock.
It's ultimately about player evaluation and coaching. Same old story.
Well if anyone did say it they were wrong. He inherited several players and only honed them down over the years. That's in contrast to Carroll in Seattle who inherited virtually nothing.
And do not tell me that an argument I believe, reason for well, and back with evidence is a "distraction." Remember when you posted that you would speak slowly so I would understand? Calling my valid argument a "distraction" is no better than that.
Saying something is a red herring is aimed at the logic of the argument (and I stand by that).
Saying something is a distraction is aimed at the poster and his motives.
...
Geez, zn. This thread is an excellent example of why it's sometimes difficult for others to have a board discussion with you.
Why do I say that?
Well, first of all, the OP's context was pointing out that tremendous roster turnover is not uncommon in the NFL. And that other teams have experienced as much, or more than the Rams and yet they still prospered. This weakens, if not destroys the myth that Fisher's admittedly terrible inherited roster should continue to be accepted beyond a couple of years. Yet we've seen some that have repeated that very thing year after year, even though you claim not to have seen them.
Then you compound your straw man position by complaining that a challenge to your argument "that you believe, reason well, and back with evidence", when described as a "distraction" (as in off topic) is offensive and deserves to be called a red herring. A personal insult, even.
So, let me see if I've got this...
Your straw man change of subject (from poor inherited roster to OL & CB injuries) is not only okay, but to call it a distraction is not only improper, but insulting and a breach of board etiquette?
And to call the inherited weak roster myth a fallacy is perfectly fine to describe as a red herring?
Ummmmm...
"Distraction" description by me when you change the subject being discussed is "bad".
But "Red Herring" description by you, when challenged, (after the topic change by you) is "good".
See what I'm saying here?
It's not easy to have a good discussion with one that not only changes subject mid thread, but then feels free to assign his own descriptors to the opinions being exchanged.
Not really all that different from trying to nail jello to the wall, man.