More Media Crap (this time, from Jim Thomas)

[AvengerRam]

In his recent column, Jim Thomas makes the following bold statement regarding the recent Montgomery/Fairchild altercation:

some observers theorized that tension over the use - or non-use - of the running game may have been behind the tiff.

Now that is intriguing. I sure would like to hear more about this angle.

And so, he continues...

It happened during a 9-on-7 rushing period, in which the Rams' first-team defense was practicing against a Rams scout team running Arizona rushing plays. The incident was prompted by a disagreement on how to use the fullback on a specific running play.

Wait a second... that doesn't sound like the argument was over the extent to which the Rams use the running game in their offense, does it?

There must be more information that supports Thomas' hypothesis, right?

Continuing on...

But it happened so quickly - and was over so quickly - that none of the assembled media saw it. (The media was shielded by a couple of dozen standing players standing in their line of sight at the time.)

So you didn't even see what happened, nor did any of your fellow reporters? Where are you getting your opinions from, then?

Some players and coaches weren't aware of the tussle until after practice. In any event, Montgomery clearly isn't happy with his input in the offense according to team sources, and it briefly boiled over Wednesday.

Ah yes, the old reliable "team sources." When you lack any facts to support a bold conclusion, its nice to be able to fall back on these spectral providers of information, isn't it?

So, to sum up... you heard, but did not see, an altercation that, from what you heard, was about a disagreement over the use of the FB on one particular play, and from that you've concluded that the coaches are fighting over how much to run the ball?

That's journalism for you, folks!

[AvengerRam]

But wait! There's more!

Brian Burwell also wrote an article on this subject.

Maybe he has more specific information that can support the bold hypothesis that the fight was over run/pass ratio:

Some in the organization believe there's resentment building between Montgomery and Fairchild over game-day play calling. The book on Fairchild is that when left unfettered, he might favor a fast-and-furious offensive approach more than Mike Martz on his most outlandish days. On game days, Montgomery charts the run-vs.-pass ratio, and as a former Pro Bowl running back aggressively campaigns for a more balanced offensive attack.

Two questions:

1. Are "some int he organization" the same guys as "team sources"?; and

2. Where do I get copies of these "books" that you are referring to?

And, so, we continue...

The whispers in the corridors are that the friction between the two coaches results from - what else? - office politics.

Who is whispering? Can you give us a name? A quote?

Is it possible that Montgomery (a Martz guy) feels like he's losing influence in how the offense operates because of the perception that Fairchild (a Jay Zygmunt guy) is the new darling of the anti-Martz front-office faction?

Is it POSSIBLE? Sure, its possible. But your job is to give us the answers, not to ask us questions. (besides, didn't Vermiel hire Montgomery, while Martz hired Fairchild?)

Is it possible that because of that perception Fairchild believes he has unchallenged offensive authority?

Again, of course its POSSIBLE. But is it so?

This article reminds me of those "teaser" sound bites that shlocky news stations give you... "Are giant flesh eating maggots invading your community? Find out at at 11:00!" (and, of course, at 11:29, they return to the story and say... in response to the question about the maggots... the answer is... no)

Why not start even juicier rumors?

Did Montgomery steal Fairchild's wallet?

Is Fairchild sleeping with Montgomery's wife?

Were racial slurs involved?

Are Montgomery and Fairchild secretly in love?

Is it possible?

When nobody saw anything, and nobody's talking, who knows?

Anything's possible.