Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 72 of 72
  1. #61
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,017
    Rep Power
    164

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

    So, what IS the point?


  2. #62
    z.nrd Guest

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

    To discuss whether making Zygmunt the President of Football Operations was a good idea, in terms of how the Rams are managed. Some say yes. Some say no.

    No different from asking if Linehan's a good head coach or if Haslett's a good coordinator.

    Neil started the thread by saying JZ needs to stick to crunching numbers.

    Others chimed in on both sides.

    There was some discussion.

    Too often it got hi-jacked by making posters the issue. That will always ##$# up a thread.

    If the discussion just happens without that, it would seem to me to be a normal thread. Different views. Stuff about the Rams. Lots of ideas. Debate. Agreement. So on.



    . . .
    Last edited by z.nrd; -06-13-2007 at 01:22 PM.

  3. #63
    helorm341 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ram country
    Posts
    340
    Rep Power
    7

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

    Quote Originally Posted by z.nrd View Post
    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.



    . . .

    My point about the lecture hall thing was that your post was very long winded, it didn't have anything to do with the content of it. You're not a sports writer for the Post Dispatch or something, I don't think most people are going to invest the time to read all of that.

    I was wrong about the veto thing, I did in fact mis read it. THanks for the paragraph explanation.

    The reason that I defend Zygmunt is because we've had two superbowls in the recent past. Didn't he also win executive of the year in 2001 (im sure you'll have a reason why he shouldnt of gotten this)?? I think his peers might know a good GM better then *GASP* you.

  4. #64
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,017
    Rep Power
    164

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

    Quote Originally Posted by z.nrd View Post
    To discuss whether making Zygmunt the President of Football Operations was a good idea, in terms of how the Rams are managed.
    Oh, so there was no worthwhile point at all. Just as I suspected.

  5. #65
    z.nrd Guest

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

    Quote Originally Posted by helorm341 View Post
    My point about the lecture hall thing was that your post was very long winded, it didn't have anything to do with the content of it. You're not a sports writer for the Post Dispatch or something, I don't think most people are going to invest the time to read all of that.

    I was wrong about the veto thing, I did in fact mis read it. THanks for the paragraph explanation.

    The reason that I defend Zygmunt is because we've had two superbowls in the recent past. Didn't he also win executive of the year in 2001 (im sure you'll have a reason why he shouldnt of gotten this)?? I think his peers might know a good GM better then *GASP* you.
    Like everyone else, I write the way I want to, and if someone whines about it, I tell them not to read me. Though, to be blunt, you're the first in 10 years. Still, you responded without even getting what was said, so, that was all useful. Btw Zygmunt had nothing to do with the first superbowl at all. Nothing. That is a stone cold fact. Vermeil, Armey, Martz, and Shaw can all claim some credit for that one, but at that point, JZ was just a desk jockey with no input. The team PR dept. probably gets more credit than he does for 99. And in the second one, yes great accomplishment, though, you should know that he shares credit for that one (Armey, Martz, Lovie). And in the second one, there's nothing he did where you go "no one else could have done that, this has all the fingerprints of a Zygmunt move." Then of course, after that, the team collapsed---which, I bet, for you, will have nothing to do with him one way or another.

    He's not a GM. And his peers would know that. In fact his peers would know the Rams dont' HAVE a GM. Or anyone who does the things GMs do. His best quality will be staying out of Linehan's way, or just helping Linehan get what Linehan wants. The ideas are all Linehan's; the policies are all Linehan's; most of the work is Linehan's and also Softli's. Or, in fancy language, he delegates. And to be fair he does do that. Unless you can actually name something he does that no one else can or does do.
    Last edited by z.nrd; -06-13-2007 at 06:11 PM.

  6. #66
    z.nrd Guest

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    Oh, so there was no worthwhile point at all. Just as I suspected.
    And that IS worthwhile? LOL. Dude, different people just like different things. Fair enough?

  7. #67
    bigredman's Avatar
    bigredman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    El Paso, Texas
    Age
    56
    Posts
    1,815
    Rep Power
    61

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

    Oh my....against my better judgment I will respond this one last time Sybil, but frankly son, you are giving me a headache.

    Quote Originally Posted by z.nrd View Post
    Now time for some promised responses.
    Mostly, this just doesn't make any sense: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.
    You said what you said, and everyone here can read it for themselves and knows (except you) the contradiction in your post. Safeties worth a 12th pick in the first round is in the eye of the beholder. The coach and scouts see the talent and athleticism. Then you have guys like Shaw and Zygmunt who look at it through the cost to the team (salary cap, the positions drafted before this one and the money that they might demand artificially driving up the price, the agent the player has and his history with the team, character issues, public relations issues, short and long term goals of the organization). All the coaches are concerned with is winning, and winning NOW. The 12th pick DOES NOT cost the same no matter who you pick, which was my point then and continues to be. Now be honest. Do you believe Brady Quinn will be paid the same money (total package) as a corner back taken as the 22nd in the first round?


    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?
    I wasn't asking YOU to prove Zygmunt knows salary cap and contract issues, I was pointing out his strengths. You claimed you wanted your GM to have a background in coaching or scouting. I am responding to your assertion that a GM is a "football guy" if he has coached or scouted. I was pointing out that "football guys" come in many forms, including those that are skilled in negotiating contracts and knowing the salary cap. They are just as valuable, if not more so in a NFL football organization. What you fail to comprehend sonny, is that NFL football is extremely complex, requiring specialists, just like on the field, in the front office. Zygmunt has been with the organization over 20 years (this makes him a football guy). He's not an idiot. He knows football as it pertains to the NFL, and especially looking after the organization's interests financially while balancing success on the field. He's proven his ability through a Super Bowl victory, a NFC championship, and several Division Championships over his tenure. Your assertion that a GM should be an ex-coach or scout is without foundation. Again, YOU are making the affirmative defense of your position that all successful organizations have GM's that are ex-coaches and scouts. WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE? Still confused? I don't have to prove anything to you. Zygmunt doesn't have to prove anything to you. YOU say he doesn't belong. So stop deflecting, and own up to your own inadequacies, admit you are wrong, and go on. BTW, your assertion that Zygmunt had nothing to do with the Rams winning the Super Bowl in 1999 in a response to another member responding to your post demonstrates the vastness of your ignorance and crystallizes the criticism that I and others have of your position. You are saying the man who orchestrated the signings of free agents, renegotiation of contracts, gave approval to some coaching selections and disapproved of others, resigned free agents and let others go was not in anyway influential to the success of the Rams in 1999 is plain ignorant, prejudicial, and indicative of your rants in this thread.

    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."
    Refer to response to your Point #2. Old fashioned football GM? What is that? How many are in the league now, and how many have successful organizations? (Specifically, and give us bios based on fact) You remind me of the prosecutor who comes into court, with no evidence, and proclaims, "the defendant is guilty", and demands defense counsel to prove the defendant is not guilty. "Prove the negative". Classic fall-back argument of the intellectually lazy.


    [quote]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.

    If you don't think that the Rams are a successful organization, then why are you a fan? (allegedly) You can question the moves of management, coaches, etc. I have no problem with that. However, YOU have to come with facts supporting your position. You haven't shared any. All you have shared are "opinions". You don't support your opinion with that of others. Sonny, I debate all day, everyday. Difference of opinion is my life, except I know when I have the burden of proof, and you don't. EVERYBODY agrees, you have the burden of proof here. Put up or shut up time my friend. What evidence (not opinion) do you have that Zygmunt has been detrimental to the team (in other words, if it weren't for Zygmunt, the Rams would have acted in another direction and would be the better for it as translated in win/loss record).

    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.
    No I'm not wrong. I didn't claim Zygmunt didn't have veto power. I said "There is a great deal of preparation prior to the draft. Who has "veto" power on the Ram's staff, I don't know, but I'm sure all opinions are weighed and a consensus is built prior to going into the draft." Your research proved me RIGHT on that point. (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.) I would point out a significant aspect of that quote. "team ownership via Shaw or Zygmunt, reserves the right to veto..." You may be pointing the finger of indignation at the wrong person here. In any event, would you like the Rams to be run like the Detroit Lions? Millen is certainly a "football guy". Would you like the Rams to be run like the Washington Redskins, who have football people, but are in salary cap hell? Would you like the Rams to be run like the whiner's were in the 90's with football people, who are also climbing out of salary cap hell? How about the Raider's? Al Davis football enough for ya? How's that team fairing? The problem with you z.nrd is that you generalize to much with your assertions, and you demand so much from everyone else, but not from yourself. I will give you one thing. The reference to, and proper use of "ad hominem" was impressive. Used it myself during legal proceedings. I hope Mommy didn't catch and ground you for researching that term with your flashlight under the covers late at night when you were supposed to be asleep.

    One last note. You are responsible for keeping this thread alive WAY beyond what it should have. For that, you may be considered as a finalist as "catalyst" in next year's clannie awards. Now take your ball and go home. Let's go onto something else shall we?
    Last edited by bigredman; -06-14-2007 at 12:09 AM.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  8. #68
    z.nrd Guest

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

    [quote=bigredman;176037]

    LOL, "Point" #1.

    You said what you said, and everyone here can read it for themselves and knows (except you) the contradiction in your post. Safeties worth a 12th pick in the first round is in the eye of the beholder. The coach and scouts see the talent and athleticism. Then you have guys like Shaw and Zygmunt who look at it through the cost to the team (salary cap, the positions drafted before this one and the money that they might demand artificially driving up the price, the agent the player has and his history with the team, character issues, public relations issues, short and long term goals of the organization). All the coaches are concerned with is winning, and winning NOW. The 12th pick DOES NOT cost the same no matter who you pick, which was my point then and continues to be. Now be honest. Do you believe Brady Quinn will be paid the same money (total package) as a corner back taken as the 22nd in the first round?

    "Point" #2.


    I wasn't asking YOU to prove Zygmunt knows salary cap and contract issues, I was pointing out his strengths. You claimed you wanted your GM to have a background in coaching or scouting. I am responding to your assertion that a GM is a "football guy" if he has coached or scouted. I was pointing out that "football guys" come in many forms, including those that are skilled in negotiating contracts and knowing the salary cap. They are just as valuable, if not more so in a NFL football organization. What you fail to comprehend sonny, is that NFL football is extremely complex, requiring specialists, just like on the field, in the front office. Zygmunt has been with the organization over 20 years (this makes him a football guy). He's not an idiot. He knows football as it pertains to the NFL, and especially looking after the organization's interests financially while balancing success on the field. He's proven his ability through a Super Bowl victory, a NFC championship, and several Division Championships over his tenure. Your assertion that a GM should be an ex-coach or scout is without foundation. Again, YOU are making the affirmative defense of your position that all successful organizations have GM's that are ex-coaches and scouts. WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE? Still confused? I don't have to prove anything to you. Zygmunt doesn't have to prove anything to you. YOU say he doesn't belong. So stop deflecting, and own up to your own inadequacies, admit you are wrong, and go on. BTW, your assertion that Zygmunt had nothing to do with the Rams winning the Super Bowl in 1999 in a response to another member responding to your post demonstrates the vastness of your ignorance and crystallizes the criticism that I and others have of your position. You are saying the man who orchestrated the signings of free agents, renegotiation of contracts, gave approval to some coaching selections and disapproved of others, resigned free agents and let others go was not in anyway influential to the success of the Rams in 1999 is plain ignorant, prejudicial, and indicative of your rants in this thread.



    Refer to response to your Point #2. Old fashioned football GM? What is that? How many are in the league now, and how many have successful organizations? (Specifically, and give us bios based on fact) You remind me of the prosecutor who comes into court, with no evidence, and proclaims, "the defendant is guilty", and demands defense counsel to prove the defendant is not guilty. "Prove the negative". Classic fall-back argument of the intellectually lazy.




    "Point" 3

    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.

    If you don't think that the Rams are a successful organization, then why are you a fan? (allegedly) You can question the moves of management, coaches, etc. I have no problem with that. However, YOU have to come with facts supporting your position. You haven't shared any. All you have shared are "opinions". You don't support your opinion with that of others. Sonny, I debate all day, everyday. Difference of opinion is my life, except I know when I have the burden of proof, and you don't. EVERYBODY agrees, you have the burden of proof here. Put up or shut up time my friend. What evidence (not opinion) do you have that Zygmunt has been detrimental to the team (in other words, if it weren't for Zygmunt, the Rams would have acted in another direction and would be the better for it as translated in win/loss record).

    "Point" #4.

    No I'm not wrong. I didn't claim Zygmunt didn't have veto power. I said "There is a great deal of preparation prior to the draft. Who has "veto" power on the Ram's staff, I don't know, but I'm sure all opinions are weighed and a consensus is built prior to going into the draft." Your research proved me RIGHT on that point. (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.) I would point out a significant aspect of that quote. "team ownership via Shaw or Zygmunt, reserves the right to veto..." You may be pointing the finger of indignation at the wrong person here. In any event, would you like the Rams to be run like the Detroit Lions? Millen is certainly a "football guy". Would you like the Rams to be run like the Washington Redskins, who have football people, but are in salary cap hell? Would you like the Rams to be run like the whiner's were in the 90's with football people, who are also climbing out of salary cap hell? How about the Raider's? Al Davis football enough for ya? How's that team fairing? The problem with you z.nrd is that you generalize to much with your assertions, and you demand so much from everyone else, but not from yourself. I will give you one thing. The reference to, and proper use of "ad hominem" was impressive. Used it myself during legal proceedings. I hope Mommy didn't catch and ground you for researching that term with your flashlight under the covers late at night when you were supposed to be asleep.

    One last note. You are responsible for keeping this thread alive WAY beyond what it should have. For that, you may be considered as a finalist as "catalyst" in next year's clannie awards. Now take your ball and go home. Let's go onto something else shall we?
    "Point" #1. You are just so completely lost. I don't even know WHERE to straighten out the misreadings in your first point. That one is hopeless. Not only is there no contradiction, this is so squirrled up by now, I don't even know what YOU *think* the supposed contradiction IS.

    So, some random points.

    Do you really believe if the Rams took Quinn at #12 he would get a bigger contract than the guy taken two picks ahead of him? Rookie contracts are in effect virtually slotted by draft order. That's what some Rams officials meant when they decided not to pay 12th pick money to a safety...JZ and whoever else decided in advance that the safety position should not earn 12th pick money, regardless of the player.

    And apparently, in contrast, some RAMS officials and coaches DID think Polamalu was worth the 12th pick as an athlete, rigid position slotting aside. Or we would not even be having this discussion. We are having this discussion because THEY debated it. The debate didn't involve Quinn, or any hypothetical...it was about 2 actual players, and choosing between them. IN fact, in the past, Martz came right out and said that Polamalu was the Rams alternative pick to Kennedy.

    And then there's the idea that left alone, a coach would not care about cap space, or character, etc. ....which is so weird. It's like you believe your stereotypes are real things. You know, there are teams in this league (like Denver) run by the head coach (ie. where the head coach is in effect the GM too) who actually care about the things you seem to think NO coach would care about.

    "Point" #2. A true GM can assess personnel---Zygmunt CAN'T. Meanwhile, as shown by team after team in the league, a true GM can also pay attention to the cap, and all the other considerations you raise. Unless you think that teams like Chicago, Indianapolis, and San Diego are in deep trouble.

    If a true GM can do what JZ does AND MORE, who needs JZ, who can only do half of what a true GM does? And remember, most of the the playoff teams in the league are run the way I describe. Only a tiny handful of teams are set up the Rams way (another one being the Jets).

    "Point" 3.

    You have straw men (bad straw men too, like mentioning a team that is really run by a rogue owner and not a true football guy---Washington), red herrings, semantics instead of substance, every fallacy I can name, including sad ad hominem stuff I wouldn't expect from a teeny-bopper, and yet you nominate yourself this debate king. C'mon, man, gimme a break.

    No, I don;t think being the 2nd losingest team of the 90s, and then collapsing cause of personnel issues after a superbowl loss, qualifies the Rams as having an unblemished record. I said it straight out---they have a very mixed record since Shaw took over in 82, although I do have high hopes for Linehan. If it offends you that I think differently than you do on that, then, ...shrug. And unless this is the Homers board, which obviously it ISN;T, then, I am more or less free to think and say what I think and say.

    "Point" #4

    You did it! DENYING YOU SAID WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SAID. And STILL not even reading what *I* said. (For example you still think I am *against* the veto thing).

    And then telling me what a thread is "supposed to be." Great, the thread police have spoken.

    Even the "insults" are lame. So try not to bluff when you're wrong. It just looks like what it is.

    I would love a real discussion of these issues, instead of having to respond to countless insult posts. (And yeah I crossed the line right back in response sometimes.) I don;t know what it is about discussing management. People expect disagreement when a coach gets discussed, or a player...but for a handful, discussing management is treated like heresy.
    Last edited by z.nrd; -06-14-2007 at 03:02 AM.

  9. #69
    bigredman's Avatar
    bigredman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    El Paso, Texas
    Age
    56
    Posts
    1,815
    Rep Power
    61

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

    Exactly what color is the sky in your world z.nrd?
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  10. #70
    mikhal5569's Avatar
    mikhal5569 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Mass
    Age
    39
    Posts
    1,102
    Rep Power
    24

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

    Wow, I bet all you guys really kicked a$$ in debate club. ( I know that was lame, but I felt like posting because I felt left out.)

  11. #71
    z.nrd Guest

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

    Quote Originally Posted by bigredman View Post
    Exactly what color is the sky in your world z.nrd?
    Oh, wait, cause of that excellent bashwork, I now feel so outgunned, it makes me wonder if you really wrote a pile of fallacies, dodges, and personal bashes like I first thought, and that instead it was really an actual, real, substantial argument. Oops!

  12. #72
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,017
    Rep Power
    164

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

    This thread has outlived its usefulness.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

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
  •