Quote
Rams43
You're guilty of a false premise there, zn.
I don't deny that injuries are a factor in coaching success, particularly dramatically high injuries. That would be silly.
Are you claiming that the OL had dramatically high injuries last year? In the face of the stat link I provided?
GRob
Saffold
Barnes
Here's what I already said about that.
Quote
That's the real story, as much as some try to neglect it. The history of Rams OL injuries is the real story of OL play from 2006 on.
That doesn't account for 2016, where it just was never consistently effective, but it is the story before that time.
So I already addressed 2016.
And I don't have a "false premise," I addressed your own words. You said all teams have OL injuries. Quote:
OL injuries happen to all teams, don't they? My responses werew that first I account for that by talking about OLs being "relatively healthy," and I also distinguished that from massive, extensive, simultaneous OL injuries of the kind the Rams suffered most years from 2006 on.
If you are not denying that massive, extensive, simultaneous OL injuries of the kind the Rams suffered most years from 2006 on, then, we don't have a disagreement.
Nor do you have a case when you try to claim that in effect McVay is the only Rams head coach who has addressed the OL.
That's simply not true.
What we HOPE INSTEAD is that McVay is the first Rams head coach in a long line of them who made effective choices for the OL (regardless how they look in the off-season, ie. that the signings work out) AND that he does not suffer the kind of massive, extensive, simultaneous OL injuries of the kind the Rams suffered most years from 2006 on.
Cause if the choices do hold up, and the line remains relatively healthy, then it ought to be better than it has been in the down years (going back to 2006).
..
