Bernie: Rams still too short of talent

[Alan]

thirteen28 reading things that aren't there:
Some of these PFF ratings are ridiculous. And Bernie is being lazy by relying on them.

Bernie ISN"T relying on them, he's commenting on them and coming to the conclusion that whether you agree with them or not, we aren't where we should be after three years armed with a plethora of high picks.

Again I have to ask, did you even read the whole thing? Is so, how did you miss stuff like this:
"As much as I respect the crew at Pro Football Focus for their excellent and diligent work, I don't agree with all of their opinions. Two quickie examples: I think defensive end RobertQuinn is an elite player — not a "very good" player. I don't see how QB SamBradford can receive an "average" grade when he's missed the last 25 regular-season games. Bradford hasn't played in a real game since Oct. 20 of the 2013 season. So how do we know? " So those are just two quick examples of stuff he disagrees with PFF about which means there are even more he didn't mention. The guy basically agrees with your take on some of the PFF grades and you dis him?

Sometimes, certain writing styles lend themselves to misreadings. Many of you don't seem to be reading the same article I am.

 

[Prime Time]

I'd say so. The flip side of that coin is to ask how they could have done it better without the gift of seeing into the future. Fisher admittedly goofed on the Quick/Wagner situation where they were trying to make the most of all of their picks to fill a roster nearly completely devoid of talent. Had they known in advance that Wagner was *going to be* a better long-term solution, I'm sure Fisher wouldn't have tried to screw around with the picks and just took him. Same thing with Tavon and (pick your receiver). The bottom line, for me, is that I find it completely unfair to judge Fisher and Snead's decisions on filling the roster after the fact. None of these "experts" had an issue with the way they were drafting then, because they constantly received high marks. But now it's an issue because we can see how other players measure up to who they selected instead.

It's a tired exercise that I find futile by its very nature.

Somewhere along the line the inability to coach up these players to a "good" or "above average" level needs to be taken into account as well. Fisher supposedly hired an all-star coaching staff but the results have been less than expected, imo.

 

[Alan]

-X- with this:
I'd say so. The flip side of that coin is to ask how they could have done it better without the gift of seeing into the future. Fisher admittedly goofed on the Quick/Wagner situation where they were trying to make the most of all of their picks to fill a roster nearly completely devoid of talent. Had they known in advance that Wagner was *going to be* a better long-term solution, I'm sure Fisher wouldn't have tried to screw around with the picks and just took him. Same thing with Tavon and (pick your receiver). The bottom line, for me, is that I find it completely unfair to judge Fisher and Snead's decisions on filling the roster after the fact. None of these "experts" had an issue with the way they were drafting then, because they constantly received high marks. But now it's an issue because we can see how other players measure up to who they selected instead.

I'd have to agree in principle with everything (except the purple part) you said except I don't agree with your coin analogy because there are more than two options. I'm not judging his drafts by using hindsight and I doubt Bernie is either. Nowhere in his article does he even hint at that.

My view (probably Bernie's too because he said so ) is solely derived by looking at the results. What other life situation isn't judged by the final results? Here's the key statement for me: "Nearly half of the Rams' 28 selections — 13 — over the past three drafts were made in the first three rounds. ". 6 of them were first rounders. We didn't do enough with that ammunition IMO. Judging by your list of starters picked in those rounds (9), I'd have thought you would agree with me. I don't believe that nine starters, many of them not that good, out of 13 high picks with 6 of them 1st rounders is what I would call doing a good job with our resources.

 

[Selassie I]

I bet that having Williams running the defense for the 2nd year in a row is going to result in an increase in production on the field for the defense. Collectively and individually.

Our offense really has no where to go but up. I look forward to seeing what the new coaching staff will bring to the table. Imagine having Bradford starting every game next year. Quick all year.

Lots of Young players still learning the ropes make up the 53. They will be better with the experience they've gained.

This team was a fucking disaster when Fish and Co took over. And I think that description is kind.


I expect big improvement across the board in this fucktard's Ram grades next year. I expect bernie to still be a hater though... nobody with the Rams will talk to that troll... can you blame them? LOL

 

[ram007]

Is it coaching or talent or bad luck we are 6-10?

 

[-X-]

I don't believe that nine starters, many of them not that good, out of 13 high picks with 6 of them 1st rounders is what I would call doing a good job with our resources.

Which is why I queried, "how could they have done it better without the gift of seeing into the future?" See, the same methodology they took into building the team would undoubtedly be viewed as a resounding success if all of the players they selected turned out to be instant stars (what's the league average of that happening? Pretty low). But since they weren't, or aren't, then the lazy expert (not you) can sit back and say they did it wrong. That's too easy to do, despite it being the only way to judge whether or not something was successful. It's not the conclusion I find fault with, it's the way they arrived at it.

But let me address your POV instead of orating about the people who say "I wouldn't have done that" when someone else steps in shit. I agree that the roster could be better. I agree that they probably didn't make as much out of their resources as it turns out now they could have. I wouldn't have forfeited picks for Austin, and I wouldn't have passed on Wagner if I had such a high opinion of him like Fisher did. I may have put more stock in NFL readiness than unrealized potential. I may have done a lot of things differently, in fact. But just because some of my opinions then turned out to be the better option now, doesn't mean I have the right to question their methods or results. You have to earn that right.

We're one of 32 teams that are trying to master the draft. Unfortunately, we're all failing to figure it out.

 

[-X-]

Somewhere along the line the inability to coach up these players to a "good" or "above average" level needs to be taken into account as well. Fisher supposedly hired an all-star coaching staff but the results have been less than expected, imo.

I suppose there's some validity in that. But that would indicate that these coaches aren't as good as advertised. Are they? I dunno. There's a track record of highs and lows associated with all of them, so it's hard to tell. It's kind of a good-ole-boy network of coaches, and I've never been a fan of that. I still maintain, however, that coaches are only as good as the players they have. I mean, look at Seifert. Genius with the 49ers, abject failure with the Panthers.

 

[ram007]

I suppose there's some validity in that. But that would indicate that these coaches aren't as good as advertised. Are they? I dunno. There's a track record of highs and lows associated with all of them, so it's hard to tell. It's kind of a good-ole-boy network of coaches, and I've never been a fan of that. I still maintain, however, that coaches are only as good as the players they have. I mean, look at Seifert. Genius with the 49ers, abject failure with the Panthers.

+10.

 

[-X-]

Is it coaching or talent or bad luck we are 6-10?

20%, 30%, 50%. In that order.

 

[Athos]

Bernie ISN"T relying on them, he's commenting on them and coming to the conclusion that whether you agree with them or not, we aren't where we should be after three years armed with a plethora of high picks.

As much as I hate using this excuse for Snisher, no team is going to be where they should with that many picks if they don't even have a league average QB suiting up every Sunday. Outside of 2012, we haven't had that. We saw Bailey look better with Hill than Davis. Britt was almost wasted with Hill's shit arm passing to him. Fisher's loyalty (to Wells and Long) was a mistake.

But really, it's hard to judge talent, when important pieces, QB and line play, are not existent.

Sometimes, certain writing styles lend themselves to misreadings. Many of you don't seem to be reading the same article I am.

We are. There's just nothing note worthy than Sir. Obvious the Bitter Blowhard says that we don't already know, except he usually says it in rather obnoxious, cantankerous ways, usually full of incessant whining.

They definitely hit their draft duds or fell in worth with something exciting. Pead (never gonna live that trash pick down), Tavon (unimpressed so far) Quick (but who was flashing big in year 3. You can quibble they got overzealous on too raw a prospect), and not drafting a QB last year.

But it's hard work over turning basically THE WORST roster in football over a good 5 years without a consistently healthy QB.

 

[dbrooks25]

I don't buy this bullshit. If we had a healthy Bradford last year along with Jake Long we are more than likely a playoff team (or very close to it) and PFF's ratings would look much different.

 

[SaneRamsFan]

In reality there's a whole lot of dynamics involved in this topic and its hard for me to be unbiased because 1) the article is written by a confrontational sportswriter whom I truly dislike 2) I overrate the players on my favorite team.
I agree with X you have to try to evaluate who we have without using the rearview mirror and comparing those guys to those who were drafted in similar positions. Its kinda like respond to the post not the poster.
I dont think you can judge this rebuild yet, mostly because of injuries to key offesive personnel and the fact I think one more year is going to make a huge difference in how we view this team and players they have drafted. The developement of tavon austin, grob, and quick and a healthy bradford will make snead, fisher and all the coaching staff look awhole lot smarter.

 

[Legatron4]

Most of the comments that disagree with Bernie's take have no specifics. Like our other thread that talks about PFF's ratings (PFF's 2015 Depth Charts Ratings: St. Louis Rams), Bernie is just making comments about what PFF is saying. Pretty much the exact same thing we as posters did in that thread.

Do some only read a few words and miss statements like these two:

"You can quibble over these PFF rankings _ or throw them out completely."

"There's no doubt that Snead-Fisher have upgraded the Rams roster. They just didn't improve it as much as they should have. "


All true -X- but saying that most of their top picks are starters when they replaced players that were poor/abysmal starters is saying what? As Bernie said, did they do enough with the plethora of high picks they had. I'd give a resounding no to that question. Do you think they did enough with what they were given?

Forget about the number of "elite" players we drafted, I'd be really happy with a few more "very good" starters. I see none on the horizon. It's to early to judge players we've just drafted but barring the light suddenly coming on for most of them, who do you see as trending towards elite or very good of these players: Brockers, Quick, Jenkins, Johnson, Austin, Ogletree, McDonald, Robinson, Zuerlein, Gaines, and Mason? I'm not talking about players with "potential" because that is a tired overworked phrase that is meaningless in this context. Maybe Quick?



I find it logical considering that he's only a situational backup behind a player who is also only a "good starter" using their metrics. Unless you think Chris is an elite player then the fact that they gave them both the same rating is solely due to his high level of play while subbing for Chris and a ringing tribute to the play of Hayes during his short stint as a starter. He's still just a backup though. How can anyone call a backup a very good or elite player regardless of how well he did in limited action. What would your grade have been of Austin Davis had he been injured after the third or fourth game he started? A "very good" starter?

Well, I think when the guy consistently rates in the top 10 at his position, back up or not, he should be considered very good. Also, I'm not sure why you like Bernie so much. You defend him more then anyone. The guy a jackass. He points out stupid shit that everyone already knows and then tries to put it out as his own. It's bullshit Journalism. If you can even call it that.

 

[Alan]

-X- looking from a different angle:
I agree that the roster could be better. I agree that they probably didn't make as much out of their resources as it turns out now they could have. I wouldn't have forfeited picks for Austin, and I wouldn't have passed on Wagner if I had such a high opinion of him like Fisher did. I may have put more stock in NFL readiness than unrealized potential. I may have done a lot of things differently, in fact. But just because some of my opinions then turned out to be the better option now, doesn't mean I have the right to question their methods or results. You have to earn that right.

Looking at each different decision and questioning their methods does need to be something that's earned. But I and in this case Bernie too, aren't second guessing their individual decisions. I rarely know very many of the facts behind any of their decisions and if I did, I might make the same mistakes they did when they do make decisions that don't turn out well. I doubt Bernie knows much more than I do. That goes to the methods part of this equation. So we agree there.

As for the results, why would I need to earn the right to expect good results? Aren't we as fans paying their salaries to do a good job? I have earned the right to expect good bottom line results. We got just OK results IMO. That we did OK is only because we made some great decisions in the lower rounds. That's not a strategy that you can rely on.

 

[Alan]

Athos on a different page:
But it's hard work over turning basically THE WORST roster in football over a good 5 years without a consistently healthy QB.

I'm thinking that you believe that I'm (+Bernie) talking about the team's record when we talk about results. We're not. We're talking about the quality of the new personnel we've picked up with all those high draft picks. It's actually easy to turn over a whole roster when you're almost starting from scratch. That's a very low bar to get over.

 

[-X-]

As for the results, why would I need to earn the right to expect good results?

You wouldn't. I said people need to earn the right to question the results. We all expect good results.
But now, as I say it again, I take that back. Anyone can legitimately question the results. I shouldn't have added that after "methods."

 

[LACHAMP46]

Thanks for posting @Alan (ooops don't remember the other one). I don't agree with a lot of PFF, but the simple truth is, over 17 weeks, some of these guys are below average...But it would seem due to the style of play on defense (bend don't break) they are rating a few like EJ, TJ, Jenks, and maybe Tree a lil low...But that's alright...Put it on the wall of your gym fellas, and come to play in 2015...This still hurts...all those picks...

 

[Alan]

Legatron4 with this:
Well, I think when the guy consistently rates in the top 10 at his position, back up or not, he should be considered very good. Also, I'm not sure why you like Bernie so much. You defend him more then anyone. The guy a jackass. He points out stupid crap that everyone already knows and then tries to put it out as his own. It's bullcrap Journalism. If you can even call it that.

I guess that would depend on what you think is "consistently" and how many games (how large the data pool) you would consider to be enough. 4 games? 8 games? 12 games?

As for liking Bernie, I don't particularly like him or his stuff. I defend him because I'm so tired of people talking shit about other people because they can get away with it on the internet. People talk shit here about Demoff and management rightfully gets upset about that and asked that we desist because he's been very good to the ROD and he reads us. Plus it's the right thing to do anyway. Why is the same standard not being met with Bernie? Do we base our conduct on how much they contribute to the ROD (not talking about money)? People come to a thread that has Bernie in the title just to bad mouth him and it pisses me off. I'd do the same for any other sports writer.

How many times do posters have to tell many of us that they don't like or read his stuff (but do it anyway). Maybe if posters would just type it louder we'd understand better.

 

[Alan]

LACHAMP46 thinking other factors played a part:
I don't agree with a lot of PFF, but the simple truth is, over 17 weeks, some of these guys are below average...But it would seem due to the style of play on defense (bend don't break) they are rating a few like EJ, TJ, Jenks, and maybe Tree a lil low...But that's alright...Put it on the wall of your gym fellas, and come to play in 2015...This still hurts...all those picks...

Good points and good instructions.

Aren't we all so tired of that style of defense.

 

[Amitar]

The drivel that masquerades as sports journalism this time of year is pathetic.