Rams Fans United - Los Angeles Rams Fan Discussion Forum

/zn/ wrote:I don't see those implications in his statement.

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

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.

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.

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.

/zn/ wrote: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.

No, as usual, you're disagreeing with a straw man you created.

I never said that I read Hammond's statement as indicating that he thinks "Gurley lost the Patz game." Those are your words, not mine.

What Hammond did do was report McVay's update with one breath, then imply that McVay might be covering up the truth, citing the Super Bowl as an example. In other words, he is perpetuating the narrative - believed by many fans - that Gurley was hurt, the team covered it up, and that Gurley's "injury" was a reason (not "THE reason") why the Rams lost.

If you don't read it that way, fine. Don't twist my words, though.

Those who believe Gurley's lack of production in the Super Bowl was due to an "injury" are entitled to their opinion. I don't preclude that possibility, but I also don't see it as the only plausible explanation. McVay's explanation (that it had more to do with game flow and playcalling) is also plausible. We can all decide for ourselves what to believe. What I don't need is the assistance of sportswriters who, without providing any facts, feel the need to stir the pot with expressions of doubt and innuendo. To me, that's just sensationalism for the sake of ratings (or reads, or whatever measure they value).

I guess the question of this thread, as it has evolved, can be phrased as follows:

When the team (McVay/Snead) say one thing, and the media says another, who are you more inclined to believe?

AvengerRam wrote:What Hammond did do was report McVay's update with one breath, then imply that McVay might be covering up the truth

"Covering up the truth." To me that's an exaggeration. I think you have a tendency toward the darker, more conspiratorial reading of motives. It has shown up before.

If you look at the entire comment, and not just taking one bit out of context, Hammond is reflecting on something a lot of people have said--that the Rams tend not to be very open about what was going on with Gurley.

There's a huge difference between not being open and "covering up the truth."

Mainly, they don't have to be open about a condition that is technically not listed as an injury. They don't have to be, and it's probably not wise to be. That falls under competitive advantage. Either way, in Hammond (in the same tweet) also says this:

The thing is, from a competitive standpoint, the Rams probably don’t want to say how they will use Gurley in 2019. And they probably shouldn’t say it.

Again he is not the only one to say the Rams tend not to be very forthcoming about what went on with Gurley and his 2 knee episodes (one in September, one in December).

He's not the only one because the Rams HAVEN'T been very forthcoming about that.

Though they do not act like there was NO issue. Even in the relatively more optimistic Eisen vid, McVay says all of this:

He was obviously banged up at the end of the year.

it was a weird deal where he’s so tough. He’s pushing through different things.

I think what you really saw was a warrior pushing through the Philadelphia [Eagles] game, and then that led to missing a couple of games.

He’s feeling good. He’s in a good place. I just think the natural ebbs and flows when you play 19 games, and I know he missed a couple with the amount of work that he got, it just worked out that way at the end of the year.

think we’ve just got to do a good job of monitoring how he’s feeling throughout the season.

That's the optimistic sounding version of what Snead after the season said about monitoring him next year. And when it comes to that, McVay said nothing new.

BUT what he doesn't do is tell you what the underlying physical issue was that led him to have pain and inflammation on a surgical knee twice last year.

And he probably isn't going to.

That doesn't mean there IS no issue. Clearly there is one, or he would not talk about monitoring him better in 2019.

They call it wear and tear, and okay, but that's wear and tear on a surgical knee. That means there's very likely something physical going on (arthritis is one suspect). That kind of thing can come and go, get bad then get better with rest. Heck in their final years as Rams both Faulk and Holt were playing with bone on bone knees (unreported because again that's technically not an injury, so the team is not obligated to discuss it).

Either way McVay never once said there's NOTHING wrong and he didn't in the Eisen vid either. He has said since the season ended that in the future they will have to monitor him better, and he said the exact same thing in the Eisen vid.

Either way if they watch it carefully, Gurley can play with the underlying condition, if they're careful when it flares up. I think the goal is to have him at 100% or as close as possible to that at the end of the season.

It doesn't bother me personally that they don't discuss this with complete transparency, as I said that falls under competitive advantage stuff. They don't have to say anything so why should they.

...

/zn/ wrote:"Covering up the truth." To me that's an exaggeration. I think you have a tendency toward the darker, more conspiratorial reading of motives. It has shown up before.

You know, I needed a good laugh, so... thank you. I'm always amused by expressions of unintended irony. You also don't seem to know what the word "conspiratorial" means given that I have not asserted that Hammond is acting in concert with anyone.

If you look at the entire comment, and not just taking one bit out of context, Hammond is reflecting on something a lot of people have said--

Right... he's not a journalist. He's a gossip columnist. We're on the same page here.

There's a huge difference between not being open and "covering up the truth."

Well, there can be, but in this case, Hammond quoted McVay and then suggested that his words might not be worthy of trust (citing the Super Bowl). That's not merely a criticism of one "not being open."

That doesn't mean there IS no issue. Clearly there is one, or he would not talk about monitoring him better in 2019.

Who has denied that there is an "issue"? I'm not aware of anyone.

There are questions regarding the nature, severity and expected progression of the issue, not its existence.

The problem is, if McVay (or Snead) makes a statement at this point that suggests that the issue is relatively minor and not expected to be a significant problem going forward, there are many who are inclined towards doubt or outright disbelief. Hammond's comment is the type that adds fuel to that fire. To me, that's not helpful and is, instead, sensationalism.

FWIW, Todd Gurley had a press conference today. He basically said he's feeling good and taking things day by day. No specifics.

My interpretation of this is that there really is no specific diagnosis other than he's an NFL RB who has a heavy workload after having ACL surgery in college. Occasional inflammation and a need for rest is to be expected. You can call it "arthritis" if you want, and that is a correct, though somewhat generic, term, but it really doesn't fully inform us as to Gurley's future.

I'd bet that, on some level, McVay and Gurley would prefer if there was some discrete issue. If it was, say... a moderate tear of the medial meniscus, they could simply state that and explain how the tear will be repaired. The type of issue Gurley has, though, doesn't necessarily have a specific name or treatment. Its just something that he'll have to deal with and, hopefully, won't become an issue at the wrong time.

Hammond just posted a pic of Donald wearing shorts and bending his knees and asked the Twitterverse for a photo caption, then proposed:

Rich Hammond
‏Verified account
@Rich_Hammond
7m7 minutes ago

"No arthritis here!"

But he's not trying to stir things up about Gurley...

The "issue" described as "wear and tear" could be just that. Nothing more, nothing less. There doesn't have to be an injury. There doesn't have to be arthritis, though both are possibilities. I played sports into my 40's. Hard. Now my everyday job involves kneeling, jumping down from small heights, etc. I had knee surgery 5 years ago for a torn meniscus and MCL. But my knees were bad long before they got to that point. It's wear and tear plain and simple. 30-40 years of physical activity followed by making a living in a physical job. My knees still ache after the surgery.

Gurley has probably been playing football for over 20 years. He was probably always the bell cow for his teams, which means he got the most touches. It continued into college and now the NFL. His knees have wear and tear, along with an ACL repair. His knees could be in the beginning stages of arthritis. Because his knees have a lot of wear and tear on them. But make no mistake, nobody said the Rams lost the Superbowl because of Gurley and nobody has directly said what they're probably thinking. If Gurley was a healthy Todd Gurley the game probably doesn't end 13-3 Pats. So...…

The Rams being evasive. Or not forthcoming. Or not holding a press conference with doctors and charts and graphs and all the things that could "satisfy" the media and fans, might be nothing at all. Just an over reaction because everybody wants to hear exactly what's wrong with Todd Gurley. And it's simply wear and tear. There doesn't have to be "an event" or "an injury" or "arthritis". It could really just be he's got the knee(s) of a 35 year old.