Quote:
Originally Posted by ramsbruce
My main point was more about the difference between opinion and fact and less about Bruce, but anyways. You can argue loyalty from both the Rams side and from Bruce's side of things successfully, just like you can argue keeping him or cutting him. There are valid points to both sides of the discussion.
So Bruce shouldn't sign with the Whiners and Martz who he likes, trusts, and already knows the offense only because it's the Whiners? Bruce should say ok the Rams just cut me but I won't sign with the Whiners because the Rams hate them. Sorry, I don't buy that. The Rams did what they had to do, and then Bruce did what he had to do. It's unfortunate that Martz went to the Whiners because it was fairly obvious to me at least that Bruce was going to follow Martz wherever he went if he wasn't a Ram.
|
A Rivalry is a rivalry.No matter which way you cut it. If the question was about knowing the offense, well we got Al Saunders didn't we? He basically run's the same offense, don't forget he was with us for for 2 years during the GSOT era. Look, I'm not trying to undermine people's opinions, they ARE opinions. My basic point was the Ram's did what they had to do but with that said, their intention was to keep him NOT cut him. And let's not forget who messed up the Ram's in the first place. Mike Martz.
P.S- You want to talk about making things seem factual when your sittin there tellin me Ike would have gone wherever Martz would have gone? Hmmm, did he have you over for a BB-Q or somethin? (I'm not tryin to be an a-hole just to let you know)