JavaScript must be enabled to use this chat software. Rams treatment of players/coaches

Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    moklerman Guest

    Rams treatment of players/coaches

    With all of the "Marshall Faulk migh retire" talk floating around I began to consider what would be appropriate in terms of a farewell from the Rams and the fans. This led me to thoughts of previous players/coaches departures and it seems like there is rarely any commemeration.

    Maybe most Rams greats just move on before retiring but it seems like management doesn't show appreciation for individuals like they could(should?). Vermeil, Warner, Martz, Bruce and Faulk all come to mind when considering how treatment of their departure/retirement wasn't handled in a particularly positive way. Bruce and Faulk aren't gone yet but they did cut Bruce and Faulk seems on the way out.

  2. #2
    RamWraith's Avatar
    RamWraith is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Rep Power

    Re: Rams treatment of players/coaches

    The thing about all them players (except Bruce) is that they all left on pretty poor terms. If Faulk does decide to retire, I believe this will be a different situation and will be treated differently. I think that with Bruce as well. If something more turns out to be with Faulk and he is just being an anal, that is a whole new ball game.

    It will be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out. You know it is important that the Rams have some sort of drama in the off-season.

  3. #3
    moklerman Guest

    Re: Rams treatment of players/coaches

    that they all left on pretty poor terms.
    That's kind of what I was thinking about. I guess when a player leaves it's generally not going to be on good terms but it seems to me that some players deserve a little better. This isn't anything new for the Rams but ever since they moved to St. Louis I've been hoping that the "tradition" of casting away team heroes might begin to change.

    I don't know enough about other teams to know how their players have been treated but it seems like there are teams that celebrate their best and brightest. Maybe it just seems that way. Every time a Rams great leaves it seems like it's on a burned bridge though.

  4. #4
    bigredman Guest

    Re: Rams treatment of players/coaches

    Vermeil did get the hero's good-bye after winning the Super Bowl, Martz...even though I soured on the guy toward the end of his tenure with the Rams, he didn't deserve the treatment he got (not allowed to talk to coaches before game by Rams front office), Warner was rewarded with a great contract, got hurt, went a little crazy with his religion (IMO), and his wife didn't help things flapping her gums on the radio, so he left. Not unusual for QB's, take for instance Joe Montana when he left the whiners, no big ceremony there either. Bruce took a hit in his contract for us...he will be honored I believe, and Faulk also has been a very selfless player for the Rams. If he decides to retire, I believe the Rams should immediately hire him as an asst. running backs coach or scout.

  5. #5
    general counsel's Avatar
    general counsel is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    atlanta, georgia
    Rep Power

    Re: Rams treatment of players/coaches

    Faulk has said many times he has no interest in coaching. His experience with steven jackson and his attitude is not likely to help change his view on that.

    I think the faulk situation is very tricky because if he retires in august having nothing to do with his health (ie if the knees are really a front for some other behind the scenes issue going on), there are going to be people in the organization that are very pissed off because he could have told them sooner and left us in a better position to draft/sign another guy. There is no way linehan can say anything publicly, but you have to wonder about how he feels about the decision to not attend camp when a new offense is being put in, even if he cant actually play.

    Faulk is one of the smartest football players ever. He doesnt need to sit in a classroom to learn a new offense and both he and linehan know it. However, the point is that he is creating a different set of rules for himself and everyone else on the team and that sets a bad example, especially when a new coach is attempting to instill as sense of comraderie and teamwork.

    This is potentially the closest i have ever gotten to criticizing faulk, and while it is not actually a criticism because i do believe that he has earned the right to get away with ALMOST everything, the team does have to be bigger than any one individual and there is a limit to what one guy should be able to get away with. In my view, by missing minicamp, faulk is no where near crossing that line yet, but he has taken some kind of shot at linehans authority, including by not calling the new coach himself and having his agent do it. That is "superstar" behavior and while not atypical, its not the type of thing i expect from marshall faulk. Its a simple two minute phone call as a sign of respect and faulk should have picked up the phone himself no matter how busy he was.

    I really hope that he will be back and still believe that he will, although i acknowledge that it could be wishful thinking on my behalf.

    I hope that faulks tenure with the rams doesnt end with this kind of story/cloud. Its just not fitting for everything he has done for this team/organization. This has to be done in a classy classy way when he does leave and i really hope that we get one more year.

    Ramming speed to all

    general counsel

  6. #6
    bigredman Guest

    Re: Rams treatment of players/coaches

    Interesting post GC. From what I know, Faulk didn't hold back information regarding his surgery on his knees during the off season, and the slow recovery should have been anticipated by the front office and coaching (Linehan appears to understand). So I don't fault Faulk there. He got the surgery with all of the intentions of coming back to play I'm sure.

    While I understand that he has in fact met with Linehan and had conversations regarding what's in store with the new offense, I agree that (more over, surprised) that he didn't at least show up to the mini camps to go over the play book and watch it unfold on the field. I don't care how smart you may think you are, looking at a play on paper and watching it on the field are two entirely different things. The contact by the agent crap is exactly that, BS! Agents are for contract negotiations and media, not for contact with the coach in my opinion. Maybe there is something to the rumors that Faulk was very close to Martz and supportive of him staying. Just have to wait and hear from the man himself.

  7. #7
    Goldenfleece's Avatar
    Goldenfleece is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Washington, DC
    Rep Power

    Re: Rams treatment of players/coaches

    From what I've read, Faulk told Linehan two weeks before that he might not be ready for camp. It probably didn't seem that important to Faulk to be the one to say it now because the possibility had already been discussed. It is possible that he mentioned it to his agent, and his agent was already going to be discussing other issues with the team, so he agreed to pass the news on. Since he wasn't adding anything Faulk hadn't already voiced before, Linehan could very well be telling the truth that he did not consider that to be a problem.

    These things can get blown out of proportion pretty easily, especially in the off-season when there's nothing else to write about. I saw a several page article on Sportsline about how good the Giants must be because Tom Coughlin said and I quote, "Yeah, I think they can be pretty good." Such glowing praise. We can pretty much count on the fact that Linehan is going to say everything is hunkydory, and the sportswriters are going to exaggerate and distort the facts to make the story more compelling. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

    I do think it is surprising to see Faulk miss camp, but maybe from his perspective it would be more productive for him to make up his mind whether he's coming back rather than show up and have his uncertainty bring the mood down. It might actually be worse to have a veteran player show up injured and only half-heartedly trying to learn the playbook because his mind is on whether he really wants to or even can come back. Or maybe he'd just rather play golf and feels entitled to do so. I don't know what is going through his mind, but that's kind of the point.

    I do hope Faulk's departure is graceful whenever it comes. There's no need for bad blood.

  8. #8
    LaRamsFanLongTime Guest

    Re: Rams treatment of players/coaches

    Some people said Vermeils departure was on bad terms. The same people that are stirring up all this crap now I imagine.Vermeil stated it was a huge mistake to retire and that he loved the Rams orginization.

    Martz was on bad terms no doubt about it. I have always found Martz arrogant so who knows who was at fault there.

    The whole Warner thing sucked but I still honestly think he will retire as a Ram like Montanna did with the whiners.

    Now Faulk is supposedly going out on bad terms. There is no proof to this. Until I hear Faulk say I am retiring from the game because I do not like Linehan and the Rams, then I will still assume he is just having issues deciding to play or not.

    I will agree I think the players deserve a little more ceremonial type appreciation at the end of their tenure. Jackie Slater played for how long and I dont remeber a big to do for him. Then again I dont remeber the Rams ever locking a player out of the training facilities like we saw in Tennesee this year. So yeah it could be better but it could be alot worse.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts