[aeneas1]

Hey a1,

I swear I read some posts and it's like looking at a Magritte...

ha ha... love that scene from the thomas crown affair remake, nina simone's sinnerman, magritte's the son of man.....

[max]

ha ha... love that scene from the thomas crown affair remake, nina simone's sinnerman, magritte's the son of man.....

The remake was fun. The original with McQueen and Dunaway was iconic. Always wanted a chess set like the one in that famous scene since I was a little kid.

[Rams1PlateSince1976]

Couldn't hardly sleep Sunday night. That was our game and we let it go. Just tonight feeling good enough to look at the site.

Thoughts:
The D injuries hurt, but seemed that our genius D coach take the day off. Or at least his imagination did.
Baron is missing a lot of plays.
Has to be a way for a savvy D coach to take advantage of teams doubling and tripling up on Donald.
Hated the 4th and goal call at end of first half. Hated the formation. Mike Martz would have dialed up a TD in his sleep. I would have called an easy TD with my etch-a-sketch even out of that formation.

[/zn/]

-------------

"zn: For example, according to teamrankings.com stats, in the last 3 games the Rams third down conversion percentage is 45.7%...which would be ranked 6th in the league... Ranking 6th at 3rd round conversions is the best the Rams have done since 2003 when they also ranked 6th (they were 7th in 2004)."

--------------

clearly i misread....



what a concept. then again, case can lead the rams to the postseason, can goff?

Well, yeah, you did misread. And there you go, you quote the very thing you misread without amending the misreading. You took me as saying that was equivalent to going 16 games with that ranking. But I didn't say that. In fact I don't know why anyone would say that.

As I tried to explain, if you in fact read it, when you compare 3 games to a 16 game ranking, you're trying to give a sense of how much improvement has taken place. You don't say the 2 things are equal, which is of course impossible. You just want to say, how good is this (so far)? Well it's this good, if it keeps up. It's an analogy.

I am not sure how or why you distorted that, but either way it misses the point. The point is that this offense is improving and playing better than expected. That;s invisible if you insist on doing raw season averages and including the 1st 2 games in the math.

So it's really a simple exercise. Has the offense improved? Yes. By how much? Well this site offers a nice way of thinking about that...it does stats from the last 3 games. If they have improved those stats ought to be better than the season average, which is dragged down by the 1st 2 games.

Now I THINK, near as I can tell, that the resistance to this very simple and obvious stuff comes from people dead-set on the "start Goff now" agenda, which causes them to view anything which MIGHT SOUND like it works against that agenda to be dismissed (without much real discussion). I mean, I get that.

But see as it happens I don;t have an agenda when it comes to Goff starting. It means the same to me if they start him NOW as if they wait. I said why I feel that way, at length. But as a result of not having an agenda on that, it's easier to look at straightforward information about if, or how much, the offense has improved since game 1. It makes no difference to me if they start Goff now or later, so why not just be honest about the how the team is actually doing. I don't need to downgrade Keenum or inflate him. Goff will start sooner or later, and no one calls for Keenum to be the permanent starter, so there's no point in doing anything but discussing Keenum in realistic terms.

And in fact with Keenum as the qb, in the last FOUR games they are 45.8% on third downs. How would that rank against the league if it were 6 games? It would still be 6th. (And because to my surprise I actually have to explain this, I hasten to add---that's just a rough indication of how much they've improved, and not an actual ranking for the season.) Will that continue with Goff, once they think he's ready? Yes it COULD. It was never all about the qb in the first place...so if the offense is improving in that area, it's more than just the qb making it happen. It could be a sustainable thing.

But just across the last 4 games, that's better than Seattle, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, Arizona, New England, Denver, Oakland, Dallas, Philadelphia, and Atlanta. '

Some things are going wrong with the team right now, and they went 2-2 across those 4 games.

But THAT anyway is clearly an area of improvement. Most I suspect wouldn't have expected it.
...

[Will0120]

By prolonging the inevitable, Fisher has actually put himself in a lose-lose situation.

If Goff flourishes, no one is going to praise the coaching staff that much. All they are going to ask is WHY NOT EARLIER?

If Goff flounders, no one is going to agree with Fisher that Goff just wasn't ready yet. All they are going to ask is WHY DID WE GIVE UP ALL THOSE PICKS FOR A BUST?

I don't envy Fisher's position.

[HAL 9000]

I don't envy Fisher's position.

And we should have no sympathy for Fisher. He's made his bed, now he must lie in it.

[dieterbrock]

And we should have no sympathy for Fisher. He's made his bed, now he must lie in it.

No doubt
Fisher has been much more supportive of Keenum than Goff.
For what?
Wins? Nope
Low turnovers? Nope
Playing Keenum mandates the team has a winning record and/or playoffs
By playing Goff, there wouldn't be a strict mandate. Had he started slow and came on strong at the end of the season, record wouldn't be as important