108 posts
  • 9 / 11
  • 1
  • 9
  • 11
 by AvengerRam
3 months ago
 Total posts:   2590  
 Joined:  Oct 03 2017
Israel   Longwood, FL
RFU Fantasy Football Champ

Hammond’s tweet strongly implies that McVay isn’t trustworthy when it comes to Gurley, and he cites the Super Bowl to justify his implication.

To me, that’s sensationalism, not journalism.

 by /zn/
3 months ago
 Total posts:   4176  
 Joined:  Jun 28 2015
United States of America   Maine
Superstar

AvengerRam wrote:Hammond’s tweet strongly implies that McVay isn’t trustworthy when it comes to Gurley, and he cites the Super Bowl to justify his implication.

To me, that’s sensationalism, not journalism.


To me, that's not sensationalism, nor journalism, nor Hammond. That's just you.

I don't see those implications in his statement. It's like I see his comment on a 45 degree angle and you see it on a 90 degree angle, and I wonder, how did he get there? (Plus it's just a tweet. If you follow twitter, reporters often use it to express a lot of personal opinions. They don't necessarily talk the same way there that they do in actual articles.)

I just see that tweet (the whole tweet, not that one line out of context) as basically being about how we really don't know the whole story on Gurley's knee. And, that's just true.

I don't see him blaming the superbowl loss on TG's knee at all. I can't get there from his actual words.

 by PARAM
3 months ago
 Total posts:   3558  
 Joined:  Jul 15 2015
Barbados   Just far enough North of Philadelphia
Superstar

/zn/ wrote:Thanks. But. How do you get from that quotation that Hammond blames the loss on Gurley?


And nobody in this thread, including me, is blaming the loss on Gurley. I specifically said, CJ didn't do shit either. But the questions were out there, all over, from many pertaining to "what's the matter with Gurley" when it came to the New Orleans game and the Superbowl. Nobody asked, "what's the matter with CJ?" but ironically, he didn't do shit against New Orleans either (16 for 44; 2.8).

I suggested it was the OL not adjusting to or unable to adjust to the defenses we played in those two games. Or McVay getting away from balance, which is what he said in not so many words, many times. Or a combination of both. But it's like Captain Queeg with the ballbearings…..'the strawberries, the strawberries' or in this case, 'Gurley. What's the matter with Gurley'.

 by /zn/
3 months ago
 Total posts:   4176  
 Joined:  Jun 28 2015
United States of America   Maine
Superstar

PARAM wrote:And nobody in this thread, including me, is blaming the loss on Gurley. I specifically said, CJ didn't do shit either. But the questions were out there, all over, from many pertaining to "what's the matter with Gurley" when it came to the New Orleans game and the Superbowl. Nobody asked, "what's the matter with CJ?" but ironically, he didn't do shit against New Orleans either (16 for 44; 2.8). I suggested it was the OL not adjusting to or unable to adjust to the defenses we played in those two games. Or McVay getting away from balance, which is what he said in not so many words, many times.


Wait...wait.

I did not say you DID blame the loss on Gurley.

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

I agree with you that that game had more to do with the OL (plus the Patz gameplan) and Goff being out of sync (because of the OL and the Patz D).

In terms of Gurley in the playoffs, I really don't know if the knee was still flamed up and problematical in those games or not. I can see why some say it but I don't. I just assume he recouped after the down time and that he certainly wasn't dealing with "pain and inflammation" at that point.

 by PARAM
3 months ago
 Total posts:   3558  
 Joined:  Jul 15 2015
Barbados   Just far enough North of Philadelphia
Superstar

/zn/ wrote:Wait...wait.

I did not say you DID blame the loss on Gurley.

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about.


It all comes down to 'what's the matter with Gurley' and there's no way to deny that no matter how many circles you attempt to run.

 by /zn/
3 months ago
 Total posts:   4176  
 Joined:  Jun 28 2015
United States of America   Maine
Superstar

PARAM wrote:It all comes down to 'what's the matter with Gurley' and there's no way to deny that no matter how many circles you attempt to run.


Now you've lost me completely.

I have no idea what that's a response to or what you're saying.

Whatever it is it started with you not getting what my point was in responding to you a couple of posts back.

We're talking past each other, dude.

...

 by /zn/
3 months ago
 Total posts:   4176  
 Joined:  Jun 28 2015
United States of America   Maine
Superstar

AvengerRam wrote:That’s nice. Guess I should say, “that’s just you.”


Short of it is --the way I read it, nothing in that statement indicates RH thinks Gurley lost the Patz game. (He does say he thinks TG didn't play well in that game, but that's it.) And besides, even if he did say TG lost the Patz game (which IMO he didn't say), him saying that would not amount to much--it would just be "okay RH that's dumb and wrong."

So fwiw we just disagree on that.

 by PARAM
3 months ago
 Total posts:   3558  
 Joined:  Jul 15 2015
Barbados   Just far enough North of Philadelphia
Superstar

zn wrote:I agree with you that that game had more to do with the OL (plus the Patz gameplan) and Goff being out of sync (because of the OL and the Patz D).


Like I said, nobody is directly blaming the loss on Gurley as in "Gurley lost that game". But when is Jared Goff his most effective for 60 minutes? When he has a running game, like most quarterbacks. After the Cowboys game NOBODY was asking 'what's wrong with Gurley'. Where were those questions then?

Was it the same after the Saints game? Absolutely not. Why? Because it was almost a loss and Gurley had 10 yards on 4 attempts and 1 catch for 3 yards. And it was the same after the Superbowl. Because we lost, put up just 3 points AND Gurley had 35 yards on 10 carries and 1 reception for -1 yard bringing his total for those two games to 45 yards on 14 carries and 2 receptions for 2 yards.

It's either because of his production or his lack of carries/receptions or both. We can say 'nobody blamed the loss on Gurley' directly and that's true but common sense says if Gurley, the focal point of our offense is unproductive, it puts a heavy strain on the rest of the offense. So a 3 point output combined with an ineffective Gurley and you don't need somebody to say "Gurley's ineffectiveness was a huge reason for the loss". They're already leaning heavily in that direction.

My point was CJ was equally ineffective (23 for 66 yds; 3 rec for 17 yds) so it had to be something else. The OL. The playcalling. The offensive flow or lack there of. But the story is, "McVay said nothing was wrong with Gurley but he didn't use him much against the Saints and he was relatively ineffective when used" and that was the same after the Superbowl. It doesn't take a logarithm or the dissection of every word written to arrive at the conclusion the concensus opinion was 'Gurley's play' was a large reason for the SB loss.

There was/is a problem with Gurley and it negatively affected the Rams ability to win the Superbowl.

 by /zn/
3 months ago
 Total posts:   4176  
 Joined:  Jun 28 2015
United States of America   Maine
Superstar

PARAM wrote:Like I said, nobody is directly blaming the loss on Gurley as in "Gurley lost that game". But when is Jared Goff his most effective for 60 minutes? When he has a running game, like most quarterbacks. After the Cowboys game NOBODY was asking 'what's wrong with Gurley'. Where were those questions then?

Was it the same after the Saints game? Absolutely not. Why? Because it was almost a loss and Gurley had 10 yards on 4 attempts and 1 catch for 3 yards. And it was the same after the Superbowl. Because we lost, put up just 3 points AND Gurley had 35 yards on 10 carries and 1 reception for -1 yard bringing his total for those two games to 45 yards on 14 carries and 2 receptions for 2 yards.

It's either because of his production or his lack of carries/receptions or both. We can say 'nobody blamed the loss on Gurley' directly and that's true but common sense says if Gurley, the focal point of our offense is unproductive, it puts a heavy strain on the rest of the offense. So a 3 point output combined with an ineffective Gurley and you don't need somebody to say "Gurley's ineffectiveness was a huge reason for the loss". They're already leaning heavily in that direction.

My point was CJ was equally ineffective (23 for 66 yds; 3 rec for 17 yds) so it had to be something else. The OL. The playcalling. The offensive flow or lack there of. But the story is, "McVay said nothing was wrong with Gurley but he didn't use him much against the Saints and he was relatively ineffective when used" and that was the same after the Superbowl. It doesn't take a logarithm or the dissection of every word written to arrive at the conclusion the concensus opinion was 'Gurley's play' was a large reason for the SB loss.

There was/is a problem with Gurley and it negatively affected the Rams ability to win the Superbowl.


Okay thanks for clarifying. I see why you say all that. But in my experience, other than "all of the above" (ie. OL, Patz defense including run defense, McVay, Goff) the next most common explanation I have seen for the loss is one that puts it primarily on Goff (which needless to say I don't agree with). I think people see that the 2 backs combined were 17 for 57, which means it's not on either RB (the run game in general was a problem but what I encounter is people saying that was due to a lot of things, it certainly wasn't just one RB that caused that.) So I don't encounter the idea that the loss was on Gurley. It has nothing to do with logarithms or word dissection, I just don't encounter that view.

I honestly don't think even Hammond is saying that the loss is on TG. I just see him saying he believes TG didn't look good in the Patz game, not that he was the primary reason the offense struggled.

So we just disagree on that--ie. "that" being that a lot of people blame the loss on Gurley. It's not "death match to oblivion" style disagreement, just ordinary "not sure that rings true to me" disagreement.

  • 9 / 11
  • 1
  • 9
  • 11
108 posts Jul 19 2019