Re: I doubt this part...

Quote
zn

Quote
RamsFanSinceLA

Quote
zn

Quote
RamsFanSinceLA

Quote
zn

It stands to reason that if they did not have those conditions from 2012-15 then they would have done better. Heck players on opposing teams knew that at the time, let alone the Rams players.

....

Since you're always demanding "direct evidence" or a "direct quote", where's yours on this statement?

Because it's simple football reasoning.

First, name me any examples of teams that DID do well under the conditions I named. Lots of examples jump to mind?

Why not?

Because it is harder to win when you BOTH do not have a starting caliber qb AND your OL is heavily compromised by multiple injuries.

It's not just that you can't name any teams that did well under those conditions, it's because those conditions by definition diminish an offense's effectiveness.

So I just assume players are at least THAT smart, because they understand football.

...

Ahhh, ok. So now "direct evidence" is not required. Got it.

Do you need direct evidence that if you drive a regular car 100 mph into a brick wall that it will damage the car and most likely you too?

It;s the logic of the situation.

You need direct evidence if someone is making a specific claim about something presumably someone said.

If I said when it rains you will get wet outside unless you have rainwear or an umbrella, it's based on the logic of the situation.

You could disprove me by showing examples of teams that DID win under the exact conditions I named. In that case you would be disproving my claim that logically you expect a team under those conditions to not do as well, and that it's so clear any ordinary player would know that in advance.

So unless you have a response like that, I personally will consider you as having not accounted for the actual argument.


....