Re: now you're mishearing AW

Quote
zn

Quote
Rampage2K-

Quote
zn
I saw it long before this and posted it myself (elsewhere) 2 days ago.

First defending Sullivan does not hold up no matter how many words he dedicates to it.

That's just a fact.

And no the OL issues did not reduce to losing Saffold. Saffold was an issue, no question, as I have said myself long before now--but he was not the only issue.

For some reason some people don't seem to be responding to actual arguments.

If everything AW says completely holds up, then why did the 2nd half OL in 2019 do better than both the superbowl OL and the OL from the first half of 2019? And it DID do better--and that's with 3 newbies, not 2, and with 2 rookies on top of it. If it's true that losing Saffold is the ONLY cause for OL collapse then that should not be the case. But it IS the case.

If you're going to actually respond to an argument, account for that.

You're actually making AW's point when you point to the second half improvement AFTER Noteboom and Allen were removed.... point being replacing Saf and Sully with NB and Allen was a disaster.... by the time our o-line improved we were way behind in he playoff race. Hence, losing Saffold and to some extent Sully was a HUGE reason the Rams did not make the playoffs


There, how's that account for that?

It's a not a good account, my friend, because it starts off with you not hearing what AW actually said. He defends NB and Allen because they're newbies, he's saying you can't replace vets like S and S. He did not say NB and Allen played poorly, he said that they're new and cannot be expected to measure up to vets like S and S.

So you compound all this by misconstruing what he actually said. To drive that point home here's a transcript (previously posted elsewhere):

transcript from: [theramswire.usatoday.com]

Quote

“I think it really is, because there’s also the expectation that a young player – yeah, they can come in and try to be effective in the game, but they’re never going to be as effective as somebody like a Rodger Saffold, who’s an elite interior player in the league.” Whitworth told Colin Cowherd when asked if the team’s struggles came down to Saffold and Sullivan being gone. “There’s still a massive difference in that. And a John Sullivan, who played center in this league for a long time, been a part of the Minnesota Vikings when Adrian Peterson and those guys were leading the league in rushing. He’s been a part of great rushing football teams and he comes and Rodger comes and we’re all together.

“Those were really good football players and it’s not fair for these young guys to even have the expectation that they’re going to play like that – yet. In their career, sure. But those guys were as good as they get inside. And so you watch what Rodger’s done in the playoffs. I routinely text Taylor Lewan and tell him how mad I am at him. But it’s great, I’m happy for him and he’s shown what a great football player he is.”

He just talks about young players not playing as good as vets. Which wasn't the only issue and besides it doesn't' get at the major issues.

Blythe played better than Sullivan did at the end. So much for missing Sullivan.

And Evans and Edwards both played better than NB and Allen did. Neither was Saffold but then the OL was better with them than without them, which means that no you are not automatically doomed if you lose Saffold and he gets replaced by youngsters. You can still play pretty well with youngsters. Which kind of flies in the face of what AW actually says.

...