Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 72
  1. #46
    z.nrd Guest

    Re: Reason #11,000,000 why Zygmunt needs to stick to crunching numbers.

    Well if you're that way, fine.

    The rest of us exist in the real world, where team execs talk to the press and there are no strange mysteries regarding that kind of thing.

    But you're sticking to empty abstractions. Like comparing an interview with a team president to "it's a beautiful mind". (hunh???)

    So come off the abstractions.

    Name some actual statement in this thread you think is not real, and give a good reason for thinking that besides "I just don't want to believe it."
    Last edited by z.nrd; -06-12-2007 at 04:37 PM.


  2. #47
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    9,348
    Rep Power
    75

    Re: Reason #11,000,000 why Zygmunt needs to stick to crunching numbers.

    Its more like the movie "Shattered Glass"...
    I have to do some research Z, I will get back at you.

  3. #48
    bigredman's Avatar
    bigredman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    El Paso, Texas
    Age
    57
    Posts
    1,815
    Rep Power
    61

    Re: Reason #11,000,000 why Zygmunt needs to stick to crunching numbers.

    Quote Originally Posted by z.nrd's reply to my last post
    20 Hours Ago z.nrd This message has been deleted by HUbison. Reason: Simply agreeing or disagreeing should be done through the rep function.



    When I first saw that HUbison had deleted Sybil's reply to me, I was at first disappointed. Then I read his/her/their reply to AvengerRam and realized I didn't miss anything.
    Scoreboard! BigRedMan 1 z.nrd 0
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  4. #49
    RamFan_Til_I_Die's Avatar
    RamFan_Til_I_Die is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    38
    Posts
    2,154
    Rep Power
    69

    Re: Reason #11,000,000 why Zygmunt needs to stick to crunching numbers.

    Quote Originally Posted by z.nrd View Post
    Well if you're that way, fine.

    The rest of us exist in the real world, where team execs talk to the press and there are no strange mysteries regarding that kind of thing.

    But you're sticking to empty abstractions. Like comparing an interview with a team president to "it's a beautiful mind". (hunh???)

    So come off the abstractions.

    Name some actual statement in this thread you think is not real, and give a good reason for thinking that besides "I just don't want to believe it."
    Everything you have said in this thread IS real...at least to you and the voices in your head.

    Post some of this heaping mound of evidence you supposedly possess and you will get way more support than you're getting by posting the nonsense you're spewing forth now.

  5. #50
    z.nrd Guest

    Re: Reason #11,000,000 why Zygmunt needs to stick to crunching numbers.

    LOL. WTF are you talking about? Name something and ask about evidence for it. This stuff goes back years, and there is one heck of a lot of it. If you want it all go to a decent archive and put in "Zygmunt." Try, for example, Yahoo Groups, NFLRamsNews--which is searchable.

    If you want to discuss this with me, name some specific statement or claim you think you need evidence on. Or go one at a time and name several.

    If you can't even do that much, I'll take it you;re just interested in getting in shots and do not have the least intention of challenging a specific point. The shots thing is just cheap. Are you better than that?

    If so re-read the thread, find a fact claim you disbelieve, and challenge it as untrue. Say why you think it's untrue and/or say "why do you claim THIS."

    It's easy. I'll be here virtually every day. I;ll look for it.
    Last edited by z.nrd; -06-12-2007 at 09:59 PM.

  6. #51
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,724
    Rep Power
    129

    Re: Reason #11,000,000 why Zygmunt needs to stick to crunching numbers.

    Good fraternal smack. You gotta love it. This thread is getting interesting.

  7. #52
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,672
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Reason #11,000,000 why Zygmunt needs to stick to crunching numbers.

    I can't believe this has lasted 4 pages.

  8. #53
    z.nrd Guest

    Re: Reason #11,000,000 why Zygmunt needs to stick to crunching numbers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    I can't believe this has lasted 4 pages.
    Oh it can go on longer. Believe me.

    On another board, I bumped up a long, long thread containing info from everywhere (PD, SI, etc.) on Zygmunt and the Rams organizational set up. It contains easily several dozen things (starting in 2002). If anyone wants to actually read up on these issues, it's there.

    It's THERE cause I can't cut-n-paste links or articles HERE. (I asked why but got no answer).

    The thread I am talking about isn't cleaned up yet. There's a little repetition in it, and, I noticed, some dates missing in a couple of cases. Maybe this week I'll clean that up.

    But it's here (I have to type this in by hand, can't paste it):

    "stuff on zygmunt"
    http:www.mainecove.com/ramsfans/viewforum.php?f=3
    board: Rams Huddle

    Anyone who really wants to know what is knowable about all this stuff should begin there.

    If anyone thinks something is missing, hit "reply" and add it. If you don't want to register, e-mail it to me, and I'll add it. Zackneruda99@yahoo.com.

    Meanwhile, if anyone wants to directly challenge a point made in this discussion, step up! Take turns, if you want.




    . . .
    Last edited by z.nrd; -06-13-2007 at 12:35 AM.

  9. #54
    suhpr3me's Avatar
    suhpr3me is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    93
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Reason #11,000,000 why Zygmunt needs to stick to crunching numbers.

    why cant we be friends. im only 15 and dont know big words so im lost. but been a rams fan forever =D

  10. #55
    chiguy's Avatar
    chiguy is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,179
    Rep Power
    23

    Re: Reason #11,000,000 why Zygmunt needs to stick to crunching numbers.

    As long as you continue using Katherine McPhee as your avatar, its OK that you don't know big words.

  11. #56
    z.nrd Guest

    Re: Reason #11,000,000 why Zygmunt needs to stick to crunching numbers.

    Now time for some promised responses.

    Mostly, this just doesn't make any sense:

    Quote Originally Posted by bigredman View Post
    U
    Issue #1

    You BACKTRACK in your latest essay in response to me that "
    Bearing in mind that I did not refer to EVERY position. I said SAFETY." But previously in your first response to me you say "Except they pay the same for the 12th pick whoever it is, so it's not "price."

    So do they pay the 12th pick no matter who it is (inferring whatever position it may be the same, or is it because he is a Safety, that price does come into play?)

    Point #2.

    You want me to prove Zygmunt is a football man, knows contracts and salary caps, and is worthy of being in the Ram's front office having decision making ability regarding personnel decisions.


    I DON'T HAVE TO.

    POINT #3
    You are making the claim (unsuccessfully) that he doesn't belong in his position, therefore, the burden is on you, not me to prove otherwise.

    The Ram's organization made that decision.

    POINT #4

    Now, I'm supposed to take the word of someone claiming to be a thirty year fan from Maine over that of a successful organization, under which a Super Bowl was won, followed by a NFC Championship?

    POINT #5

    You state that Ram's PD has unequivocally stated that Zygmunt has final veto power on all draft selections. Really? I DON'T BELIEVE YOU! What I do believe is that you are a disgruntled Zygmunt hater, who's hatred centralizes over
    Polamalu not being drafted by the Rams, and your posts to this thread are tainted by this agenda. I applaud your zeal and passion though, and you have, if nothing else, provided for some interesting fodder in this thread.
    The reason you're confused on point #1 is cause you took 2 different things out of context and somehow welded them.

    First, on paying the same price for the 12th. I was responding to your comment that the reason Zygmunt might insist on position slotting is that he is protecting the business interests of his owner---no coach gets what he wants regardless of price. (Which is okay by me except I would prefer a GM who knows how to both do that and also protect the football interests of his owner, but, whatever.) Anyway, my response was that that can't account for position slotting cause the 12th pick costs the same no matter who you pick, a safety or a tackle. Meaning...Polamalu costs the same at the 12th pick as Kennedy, so, where is the owner being ripped off exactly if they drafted Polamalu?

    And then the thing about "I said SAFETY." I have nooooo idea how you took that but combining it with that other sentence is confused and confusing. I was merely stressing the fact that rigid position slotting is arbitrary. There ARE safeties worth the 12th pick, which was my point. You then mention positions that should not be taken high, but, that has nothing to do with drafting Polamalu, the SAFETY, high. If you get rid of rigid position slotting, I sincerely doubt it means that suddenly, they draft a lower first round value MLB 12th.

    How you mixed up those 2 distinct points is kind of beyond me. It had NOTHING to do with saying BECAUSE it is a safety price comes into play....I don't even know what you mean by that.

    And then there's the point that the guy determining the position slotting can't tell when someone is an exception to his rigid system of slotting.

    Point #2.

    Man, that was VERY confused. I want you to prove Zygmunt knows cap stuff and contracts? HUNH? Where did you even get that from? Of course he knows contracts and cap stuff. I said over and over that's pretty much ALL he knows. So I couldn't very well be asking you to prove he knows that stuff...we ALL know he knows THAT stuff!

    I was asking you to show me that he knows much BEYOND that.

    Is he a true football guy who knows scouting, personnel, and team-building, like real true football GMs, or is contracts and the cap pretty much ALL he knows about? THAT is what I was asking.

    And I don't need cited published evidence. Just off the top of your head. Where is he a football guy?

    (I can name one thing. He was good in the Williams trade, so he understands transactions.)

    Now, then, the question becomes...if ALL he knows is cap stuff, then, why is he in charge? Why not put a FOOTBALL GM in charge, someone who KNOWS personnel, assessment, scouting, team-building...and knows it from hands-on experience. All true GMs like that know how to listen to their (subordinate) cap-guy. So why do the Rams need Zygmunt, who is only half that equation?

    Point #3.

    Uh, yeah, if you want to claim that having Zygmunt in charge is good, you do have to tell me why you think so.

    And, as for the remark about be unsuccessful at arguing the Rams would be better off with a real football GM....uh, dude, you do know that just stating an argument doesn't work is not the same as showing it doesn't work. Especially since so far, you didn't even understand what I was saying.

    I argued that it would be better to have a true old-fashioned football GM in charge, someone who came up in the business scouting, or coaching, and so knew personnel and assessment and team-building and what it takes to put together a roster.

    All you said to THAT was "that's an unsuccessful argument."

    Unh-hunh. WHY. State valid reasons for that argument being "unsuccessful."

    In short, making a mere assertion falls short of making a case. You didn't even try to make a case. Just went "no no no, not listening not listening, nah nah nah."

    Point #4.

    I didn't ask you to take my word, I asked you to respond intelligently to an argument. Making me the issue is just another dodge.

    And successful organization? Hmm. That remains to be seen, though I have high hopes with Linehan. Nevertheless, this was the second losingest team of the 90s, and lately has not been making the playoffs. So they do make mistakes.

    And if they make mistakes there's no harm in saying so.

    And no matter how successful they are (and in the long historical outlook it has been up and down)...it is every fan's right to ask questions like I ask, and to wonder if things could be done better. We do it discussing players, we do it discussing coaches, and we can even <gasp> do it discussing management.

    It is always fair and valid to ask if the system they have is reasonable, could be improved, or any of that.

    Now, no, you don't have to AGREE with the critiques. But you're kind of acting like it's wrong to MAKE the critiques. And on that, forget it. Message boards are here cause we all see things differently; you might want to get used to that.

    Point #5.

    At last, you finally make a claim based on an issue of fact, and not sheer misreading or trying to make the poster the issue (ad hominem argument.)

    You don't believe Shaw or Zygmunt have any veto power.

    Well you know who says they DO?

    John Shaw.

    Shaw even explains it. From the PD: ...team ownership, via Shaw or Zygmunt, reserves the right to veto any decision. . . ."By having a veto over the head coach, it forces a consensus between Charley and Mike in our drafting system," said Shaw.

    That is from Jim Thomas, PD, Jan 30, 2003, article: "Shaw: Martz's Role Remains the Same."

    There are several other references to that veto power in the archive record. Old and new.

    Linehan directly discussed it in an interview. He is discussing the draft; his exact words were (referring to Shaw and Zygmunt): "They've got a veto power." (Interview, Head Coach Scott Linehan, Tuesday, January 2, 2007.)

    Shaw also mentions it, directly, in an article from Sept. 17, 2005 (Miklasz, PD, article: "Shaw Tries to Control Fire at Rams Park.")

    Early on, Martz said "I have the final decision, with Jay's approval, on the personnel decisions." (Thomas, PD, January 11, 2001, article: "Martz, Armey, Deny Reports of Power Struggle.")

    Shaw exercised his veto in 99 when he over-ruled Vermeil on taking Bailey and went with Armey and directed DV to take Holt instead.

    It comes up several other times in the archive.

    And btw----I am not arguing against that veto. I have nothing against the chief execs exercising a veto. I just wish the chief exec were a true football guy...but whatever.

    Now, on this, your memory was wrong. It's not only true that JS and JZ have a veto, it was said so several times in the archive of writing on the Rams. As it happens I follow that archive closely. Not everyone does. (Though at least I provided everyone with a huge chunk of it in this thread, previous post.)

    Alright, you're wrong. Which is okay. Memories are wrong sometimes. Mine is sometimes. And there's nothing wrong with challenging me on that fact claim---people should be challenged on their fact claims....I do it to others all the time.

    But notice.

    You were so sure you were right, you thought it was okay to question my motives and integrity. So all your stuff about me being a "JZ hater" and it just turns out, you just didn't have your facts right.

    Should I follow my own advice? Yeah, I should follow my own advice. Nuff said.




    ...
    Last edited by z.nrd; -06-13-2007 at 09:11 AM.

  12. #57
    helorm341 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ram country
    Posts
    340
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Reason #11,000,000 why Zygmunt needs to stick to crunching numbers.

    Good lord znrd, is this a lecture hall or a message board? Skimming through your post I saw you talking alot at the end about veto power. You said Shaw excercised it in 99 to take Holt over Bailey, which ovbiously was a great desicion. Is there any other instances of a veto?? Exspecially Zygmunt making one, if Shaw made a veto in 99 it seems like he has the higher veto authority then Zygmunt does. If they've vetoed once or a couple times in ten years isn't it kind of a moot point? Exspecially if one of the vetos was for Holt over Bailey?

    Also, do you think it's possible that Zygmunt, being an insider and involved in the NFL for so long has learned a thing or two about football? I'm not saying he's an expert, but surely he's at least a little bit of a "football guy".

  13. #58
    z.nrd Guest

    Re: Reason #11,000,000 why Zygmunt needs to stick to crunching numbers.

    Quote Originally Posted by helorm341 View Post
    Good lord znrd, is this a lecture hall or a message board? Skimming through your post I saw you talking alot at the end about veto power. You said Shaw excercised it in 99 to take Holt over Bailey, which ovbiously was a great desicion. Is there any other instances of a veto?? Exspecially Zygmunt making one, if Shaw made a veto in 99 it seems like he has the higher veto authority then Zygmunt does. If they've vetoed once or a couple times in ten years isn't it kind of a moot point? Exspecially if one of the vetos was for Holt over Bailey?

    Also, do you think it's possible that Zygmunt, being an insider and involved in the NFL for so long has learned a thing or two about football? I'm not saying he's an expert, but surely he's at least a little bit of a "football guy".
    If someone wants a message board to be a lecture hall...so it goes. You can always not read the kinds of posts you don't like. I know there are kinds I tend not to read. Shrug.

    On veto power. You didn't read that very well. I was responding directly to the statement that no Rams chief exec HAD a veto power. That;s all I was doing. So, you're right, just skimming apparently doesn't help much. You actually have to read things. Especially since (1) I made it clear that I was responding directly to the assertion they DIDN'T have veto power, and (2) I made it clear that I had nothing AGAINST veto power. Do us both a favor and try to read a post before rushing to respond to it. Yes even a (gasp) long one.

    As for the "possibility" that Zygmunt is a "football guy"? Not by my definition. True GMs come up as scouts and/or coaches; their professional growth includes being held accountable for personnel assessments and decisions. They KNOW that stuff and can LEAD when it comes to that. Zygmunt has done not of that. And he doesn't claim to have that kind of knowledge, either. In fact, he is at his best when he delegates. Is he a football guy by your looser definition? Only to the extent that anyone who works for a football team is. Which still begs the question---so, then, why HIM? As long as, in the end, the COACH isn't really in charge, why is HE in charge? As long as it's not going to be the coach, why not put someone in charge who doesn;t have to delegate right back to the coach, and knows how to evaluate a roster top to bottom? Wouldn't that be more helpful to Linehan and better for the Rams longterm? I mean, are you defending JZ JUST cause he's THERE? I ask cause you don't offer a reason for defending him...you just seem to be doing it without offering a justification.



    . . .
    Last edited by z.nrd; -06-13-2007 at 10:48 AM.

  14. #59
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,849
    Rep Power
    169

    Re: Reason #11,000,000 why Zygmunt needs to stick to crunching numbers.

    What exactly is the point of this thread? (I mean, other than the obvious point that Zach spends WAAAAY too much time gathering old articles about the Rams and puts WAAAAY too much stock in accuracy of the broad conclusions reached by sportswriters based upon a smattering of actual information).

    Is the point merely: "ZYGMUNT BAD!"

  15. #60
    z.nrd Guest

    Re: Reason #11,000,000 why Zygmunt needs to stick to crunching numbers.

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    What exactly is the point of this thread? (I mean, other than the obvious point that Zach spends WAAAAY too much time gathering old articles about the Rams and puts WAAAAY too much stock in accuracy of the broad conclusions reached by sportswriters based upon a smattering of actual information).

    Is the point merely: "ZYGMUNT BAD!"
    1. Most of my quotations were from Shaw. So, who is lying? Shaw, or the person who pretended to be quoting him?

    2. No, the point is not "zygmunt bad."

    3. Apparently the point of the thread is to try and slam individuals who <shocked look> criticize any aspect of the front office. Cause, you know...can't have THAT! :\

    Ask more questions if it helps you any.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Latest from Hadley on Zygmunt
    By Nick in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: -02-02-2005, 03:54 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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