Yup. Fair enough...

Quote
zn

Quote
max

Quote
zn

Quote
max

Quote
zn

Quote
max
Well, see, the problem I see is that if what you say is valid then the Rams would be closer to the Hawk in performance than to a losing team which is what they are.

Remember what I said though. The problem over the last few years is very direct and simple: a combination of either injuries or massive inexperience at qb (leading to #2 caliber starters) PLUS a combination of injuries or inexperience on the OL. When that happens to Seattle they won't do that well either.

...

You see, I don't buy that. I say thats a silver bullet viewpoint. Highly unlikely.

I can't think of any team that did well under those conditions. Can you?

I don't think about it that way. I see a team that hasn't won in 13 years for a variety of reasons but the common thread is poor management and subpar talent.

When/if the Rams have another losing season this year, there will be tactical reasons for it, but the overriding issues will prevail, poor management and subpar talent.

I see THAT as being as off-base as you see my take. It's not the primary explanation for losing in the last 5 years.

If this team does well in the next 2 years, it will be partly because they have a pretty big cache of talent to draw from.

As it stands, it looks like there will be 6-7 starters who were not on the team before 2017. Webster, Barwin, Whitworth, Sullivan, Woods, Kupp, and Watkins depending on how you count the WR starters.

That;s not a team that needs a massive turnover.

Either way we are going to have to probably agree to disagree on this.

Fair enough?