Is that they all pretty have severe recency bias with no actual understanding of why things were different.
Rams make the Super Bowl run and the offensive line is pretty good. Everybody thinks Sullivan is pretty much done and as much as we would love to resign Saffold, most know it's not happening. Hey, the line should be pretty good!
The replacements have growing pains (which is often the case with little meaningful preseason) and before they can begin to gel, they are hit with a massive injury bug--something the Rams had not only avoided but been almost remarkable in doing so the previous two years. Add to this that what ever the hell is wrong with Todd Gurley is clearly still wrong--which makes the line look even worse as teams stop actually worrying about the run and just tee off on Goff. Hey, the line is awful!
So the rookies are rushed in ahead of schedule and we trade for Corbett, who may have busted in Cleveland but was also horribly coached there. You know what? The line got better. Only a fool doesn't see the progress and trend and wonder--gee what happens when Edwards and Evans have more experience, when Corbett has more time with Kromer, when Noteboom and Allen recover and learn from last season, when Havenstein returns. All they can see is exactly what happened last season and assume it's going to be exactly the same this season--unless the Rams run out and draft a bunch of new players (who also have to learn and go through growing pains too BTW). Empirical evidence without context is always pretty worthless, and most of these guys are just incapable of actually demonstrating the critical thinking skills required to do a more thoughtful analysis.
