Marmie may have found a new home.....you'll never guess where. - Page 3

*sbramfan* · #31 (**permalink**) -18-02-2006

We Rams fans are glad Marmie is gone, but to be honest, who the hell is OUR new DB coach? I don't even know 90% of the guys Linehan brought in to be coaches...at least Marmie has experience.

As for the division, the Seahawks do have continuity going for them. Same team, same coaches, same plays. Other than dropped passes, they are one of the better teams out there and will likely win the division next year.

Next year for us is probably a transition year. Offensively we hope to keep things rolling, but change is change, and if you were already good on offense, then change may not be the best thing. Probably a good thing for our poor defense, but on the whole, may be a mixed bag.

Marmie being their DB coach is not even a factor in all this...and could end up being good for them. He does have experience at a coordinator level, and apparently is not their only DB coach.

As for the hangover, it's a little more than a coin flip. It has to do with the fact that when you work so hard all year long and then come up short, it's really hard to get up for it again the next year. Somehow, when you win the SB, you come back exited and with energy. When you lose, it seems like such a long road to just get back there, when you should have just taken care of business when you had a chance the first time. I think it's real, and will be a factor, but I still see the Seahawks winning the division, barring a 180 degree turn around by the Rams defense, which we are hoping for but not realistically expecting. Maybe a 90 degree turn.

*RamsFan16* · #32 (**permalink**) -18-02-2006

Yea and look how your DBs played last year

*Large_Ant* · #33 (**permalink**) -18-02-2006

Nick, you've got two issues going for you. First, you're a literalist. You're probably the kind of guy that when you're girlfriend says "You never buy me flowers", you start pointing out the three times in your ten year relationship when you did which would make her technically incorrect... although her point still stands. To be clearer, when I said the problems with the secondary weren't because of the coaching, I should have said the problems with weren't "primarily" due to coaching. My mistake although I think you could have reasonably caught the meaning if you had tried.

Second of all, you kind of shot holes in your own credibility. You're basically saying that Culpepper quite possibly lost his ability to play QB because Linehan left and that the Seahawks DBs may lose their ability to play their positions because of the presence of Marmie. Frankly, those statements speak for themselves. As a senior member of this board, I'm quite sure you're capable of better analysis than that, no? C'mon bro. I'm pretty convinced that he's no King Midas but are you really trying to get me to believe that he's the Grim Reaper? Methinks you're going a little overboard.

*Large_Ant* · #34 (**permalink**) -18-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by RamsFan16

Yea and look how your DBs played last year

Umm... good enough?

**Nick** · #35 (**permalink**) -18-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Large_Ant

My mistake although I think you could have reasonably caught the meaning if you had tried.

How was I supposed to have reasonably caught the "other" meaning? You were crystal clear in what you were saying - "the Rams problems in the secondary weren't a result of poor coaching." You then went on to talk about their less than ideal personnel. Your meaning is clear.

If it's not the meaning you intended, then it's on you to adequately write the point you want to get across, not on me for somehow not being able to read your mind and realize the point you're trying to make is completely contrary to the words you've actually written.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Large_Ant

You're basically saying that Culpepper quite possibly lost his ability to play QB because Linehan left

Are you honestly going to sit here and tell me that Culpepper's problems weren't in some way the result of Linehan's leaving and having to deal with a new way of doing things?

Hmmm, maybe that it what you're going to say. But then, how do I know what you really mean? LOL

I find it exceptionally hard to believe that Culpepper, who posted a 110.9 QB rating in 2004 and threw 39 TDs to only 11 picks all year, somehow regressed so much simply because of Randy Moss' absence and his own individual problems. He threw more interceptions in 7 games than he did in 16 the year before. Like it or not, part of that deals with the new way of doing things. Culpepper thrived under Linehan, and stunk under Foley.

Considering the overwhelming evidence that Marmie not only isn't an effective coordinator but did not effectively coach this team to eliminate mistakes through the season, it's not unreasonable to think that the Seattle secondary might take a step back when Marmie comes to town with his big blueprint of what to do. He could prove us wrong and do wonders in the Seattle secondary. But that would be contrary to what he's done in St. Louis and Arizona.

*r8rh8rmike* · #36 (**permalink**) -18-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Large_Ant

I'm pretty convinced that he's no King Midas but are you really trying to get me to believe that he's the Grim Reaper?

He was with us. I'm sure the fans in Arizona feel the same way. You're lucky he'll only affect one aspect of your defense.

*Goldenfleece* · #37 (**permalink**) -18-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Large_Ant

Second of all, you kind of shot holes in your own credibility. You're basically saying that Culpepper quite possibly lost his ability to play QB because Linehan left and that the Seahawks DBs may lose their ability to play their positions because of the presence of Marmie. Frankly, those statements speak for themselves. As a senior member of this board, I'm quite sure you're capable of better analysis than that, no? C'mon bro. I'm pretty convinced that he's no King Midas but are you really trying to get me to believe that he's the Grim Reaper? Methinks you're going a little overboard.

I think it is quite logical to say that a change of coach can have a detrimental effect on play, so I don't really see a problem with his analysis. As far as the Marmie Touch: since 2000, if I have my numbers right the units he has coached have finished 30th, 26th, 29th, 28th, 17th, and 30th in total defense. The 17 was his first year in St. Louis. In Lovie's last year, the Rams led the league in takeaways (tying for the 3rd most in a season in NFL history) and finished among the league leaders in defensive touchdowns, and sacks in 2003. I'm not sure where we finished in total D that year, but there's no question the defense looked better. Meanwhile, the Cardinals D improved to 12th in total D the year after Marmie left (14 places higher than they ever reached with him).

*Goldenfleece* · #38 (**permalink**) -18-02-2006

Oh and his vaunted touch applied to the secondary resulted in a drop from 24 interceptions in 2003 to 6 interceptions in 2004, 5 of which came from Jerametrius Butler. Total takeaways dropped from 46 to 14. The only way he convinced teams not to throw against us was by making rushing against our god-awful run defense irresistable.

**HUbison** · #39 (**permalink**) -19-02-2006

Not to come between Nick and Ant, but I think we can simplify this to two probable speculative statements...

1. The Rams are better without Marmie.
2. The Hawks are not better with Marmie.

For us, this has to be addition by subtraction. For the Hawks, he may not make them worse, but I guaran-friggin-tee he won't make them better.

*RamsFan16* · #40 (**permalink**) -19-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Large_Ant

Nick, you've got two issues going for you. First, you're a literalist. You're probably the kind of guy that when you're girlfriend says "You never buy me flowers", you start pointing out the three times in your ten year relationship when you did which would make her technically incorrect... although her point still stands. To be clearer, when I said the problems with the secondary weren't because of the coaching, I should have said the problems with weren't "primarily" due to coaching. My mistake although I think you could have reasonably caught the meaning if you had tried.

Second of all, you kind of shot holes in your own credibility. You're basically saying that Culpepper quite possibly lost his ability to play QB because Linehan left and that the Seahawks DBs may lose their ability to play their positions because of the presence of Marmie. Frankly, those statements speak for themselves. As a senior member of this board, I'm quite sure you're capable of better analysis than that, no? C'mon bro. I'm pretty convinced that he's no King Midas but are you really trying to get me to believe that he's the Grim Reaper? Methinks you're going a little overboard.

Large ant you have 2 issues going for you right now.

1) your talking **** to one of the great guys on this board and sayin crap you don't know.

2) Your out numbered here. You talking smack about Nick. Now I may not know nick personally but from here can tell he is a great guy and loves football. ANd I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't assume things and say **** of him without knowing him or his personal life

Now I know I didn't need to do this but I respect Nick greatly and disrespect you disrespecting him.

*ramsbruce* · #41 (**permalink**) -19-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by RamsFan16

Large ant you have 2 issues going for you right now.

1) your talking **** to one of the great guys on this board and sayin crap you don't know.

2) Your out numbered here. You talking smack about Nick. Now I may not know nick personally but from here can tell he is a great guy and loves football. ANd I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't assume things and say **** of him without knowing him or his personal life

Now I know I didn't need to do this but I respect Nick greatly and disrespect you disrespecting him.

RF16 when I read what Large Ant wrote I don't see any disrespect of Nick or his "girlfriend". I also don't see any **** talking towards Nick. Ant was just using a girlfriend as an example. Don't get me wrong I like Nick a lot, but I don't think Ant has any ill will towards Nick or his girlfriend. You read way too much into Ant's post RF16.

*RamsFan16* · #42 (**permalink**) -19-02-2006

I did. I"m sorry

*r8rh8rmike* · #43 (**permalink**) -19-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by RamsFan16

I did. I"m sorry

Way to man up and admit that RF16, Large_Ant is one of the good guys.

*bluengreen* · #44 (**permalink**) -19-02-2006

I'm not excited about Marmie joining our staff at all. Hopefully he can do an adequate job as DB coach, but to be honest I'm pessimistic, and lord knows we don't need anyone else telling our DBs to play off the receiver.

*Fat Pang* · #45 (**permalink**) -19-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluengreen

I'm not excited about Marmie joining our staff at all. Hopefully he can do an adequate job as DB coach, but to be honest I'm pessimistic, and lord knows we don't need anyone else telling our DBs to play off the receiver.

It says everything that we are genuinely delighted that he's found a new home.