So if Curtis was all that & a bag of potato chips? Then he would have surplanted Bruce that yr. FACT is? Bruce retook his job & his place w/ us in 06. AND that was under a completely NEW coaching staff. :!: Which cannot be understated because that is HUGE IMHO. A new HC who doesn't necessarily have favorites? Thought enough of Bruce, & not enough of Curtis to not even make it an issue. Which means that two different coaching staffs felt like BRUCE was still the man & Curtis clearly wasn't.
If he does not start this year, then yes i will be pissed off, but i beleive he will...and he will do great things, Kevin is a damn good WR and he is gonna thrive in Andy Reids pass happy offense. Oh and i am a believer in teh Caste System, but i have a slightly softer view than most of you, but i definatley agree that discrimination towards white players does exist. Also i do agree that whites dont get the opportunitys taht blacks do at the WR position, but in this case....it is not as if Kevin Curtis was being held back by someone less skilled than himself.Colonel_Reb said:
yeah you'r right. Anyway, his acceleration is awesome, he cautght a lot of pass of 5 ot 6 yards and he turn them into 12, 13 yards. Isaac Bruce don't do this, he ran route for +10yards, caught the ball and is instantly tackled. Give to curtis long pass and he will show you his great athlecism. That's hard for Curtis to make big big play(even if he make big play) 'cause he need to break away from OLB,Safety and corner. Give him pass like Bruce had like 13yards when he is just against one corner, damn he will ran in the endzone with the hands in the air lolDon Wassall said:
GSOT said:Anyway the most obvious point that I would bring up is that I think it's laughable that we'd actually keep a dynamite playmaker on the bench of a 6-10 football squad (in 2005).
However as they say numbers don't lie. So let's take a look at some shall we??? Here's some quick stats I googled. :arrow:
[table color=azure]ISAAC BRUCE
[row]Year___G___GS___Rec___Yds__Avg___Lg___TD___20+__40+__1st
1999____16__16____77___1165__15.1____60___12____19____5____54
2001____16__16____64___1106__17.3____51____6____23____4____49
2004____16__16____89___1292__14.5____56___6_____20____1____64
2005____11__10____36____525__14.6____46____3_____8____2____21
2006____13__13____74___1098__14.8____45____3____23____4____54
[/table]
http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1294
[table color=azure]Kevin Curtis
[row]Year___G___GS___Rec___Yds__Avg___Lg___TD___20+__40+__1st
2005____16___9____60____801__13.4____83____6____8_____4____35
2006____16___1____40____479__12.0____42____4____7_____1____27
[/table]
http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/395944
I threw in the 99 & 01 yrs. (our SB yrs.) not because I was trying to make Bruce look better. BUT because they actually further the point. IF his production is still virtually identicle to when we were blowing people up??? Well then we can't easily say that he's lost a step etc. etc. Based on Bruce's stats? They CLEARLY show that he's virtually been consistent since our last SB appearance. Which is absolutely OUTSTANDING since 02 was an absolutely dreadful yr. for us (since we started 0-5). Anyway I don't care what you think about Bruce, feel free to hate him all you like. But looking at your boy's numbers Curtis isn't CLEARLY making the case to replace a potential HOF WR who WON the Rams a SB. (By catching the 73 yrd. BOMB from Warner for the game winning TD in SB 34).
Curtis CLEARLY did NOT EARN the right to start over a WR who's been nothing but productive for the Rams yr. in & yr. out. Now don't get me wrong, I always liked KC. While he's got decent numbers, & could clearly start on most teams? He's not good enough to sit the last remaining L.A. Ram still playing. ANYONE who's ever played football, or knows virtually ANYTHING about the sport? CLEARLY understands how important the team lockeroom can be to a team's ability to WIN. You get the right guys in that lockeroom, & it can be solid gold for even the furthest longshots. BUT if you get the wrong guys in that lockeroom, they can be a cancer that KILLS the team's spirit. T.O., Andre Rison, Jeff George etc. Which is why it's going to be interesting to see Randy Moss attempt to play for Bill Bellichick, but I digress.
My point is that it would have been virtually suicide if the Rams had sat Bruce or even traded him in favor of Curtis. The ONLY thing that Curtis had to offer over Bruce was YOUTH. Unlike your implications I believe the stats CLEARLY indicate that Curtis does NOT provide us w/ that mythical BIG PLAY ability, or give us gamebreaking skills that we wouldn't otherwise have on the team. Now he might very well provide that for someone else, I don't know the future. But during his time w/ the Rams he didn't DO enough to replace the incomprable BRUCE. Believe whatever you like, it bothers me not. However, two different coaching staffs who know a helluva lot more about football than we ever will decided that Bruce not only still had something left. BUT that he was a better option than KC.
One last thing I'd like to point out, then I'm done I swear. Is that BRUCE is a KNOWN commodity. What I mean by that is that everyone knows what he brings to the table. Whereas KC was an unknown player to most teams we played. Therefore Bruce typically drew double coverage, where KC was usually not schemed for by the opposing teams. AGAIN anyone who's been a football fan longer than 5 minutes knows that it's a complicated sport. Not only does the individual skills of the player come into play? But also the players AROUND him also help determine his success. By your own account the Rams had/have one of the NFL's best offenses. Therefore any WR on our squad should only look that much better right? Well if your boy KC is all he's cracked up to be? Then he should have really lit up the place when he got a chance to play. As it stands? He didn't separate himself from the pack, which is why he's no longer here. Again though that's not an indication that he's bad, or even that he's not starting material. Most of the Rams backup WRs would be guaranteed starters on other squads. Case in point? Mike Furrey who's become the goto guy in Detroit. Furrey couldn't even make our team as a WR, & they had to switch him to Safety to keep him on our squad. It's no knock on our WR backups........it's just that our starting WRs are JUST that good.
And yes you bet your bottom dollar I was including BRUCE in that. He's helped make Torry Holt look that much better over the yrs. Again though you don't have to like him, but I'd appreciate it if you would acknowledge what he DOES do for us. No need to run him down, just bc you like KC.
GSOT said:
GSOT said:
No, i was merely saying that Bruce is a huge part of the Rams on and off the field, not having a go at KC. And yes i do agree with your last point.Edited by: GSOTWhite Shogun said:Looks like we've done gone and stepped on the toes of a genuine Rams fan in this thread.
GSOT said:
I'm not sure if you're trying to say KC is a cancer in the locker room, or what is the point is of this paragraph? However, this attitude is what keeps good white running backs and other whites out of traditionally black positions in the first place. The blacks resent the intrusion of white players onto their 'turf,' complain incessantly and ostracize the white players until the coach finally benches or trades them.
Just because someone disagrees with your point of view does not mean that person knows nothing about the sport, either. Most of us here are of the opinion that Kevin Curtis has been held back by the caste system, regardless of how we may feel about his comparison to Isaac Bruce. Do you also agree that Curtis' career has been hampered by the fact that he is white? Some see his inability to replace Bruce in the lineup is a result of caste system bias. You don't think so. The fact remains however that we probably do agree that Curtis' career HAS been effected negatively by the caste system, without a doubt.
Don Wassall said:GSOT said:Anyway the most obvious point that I would bring up is that I think it's laughable that we'd actually keep a dynamite playmaker on the bench of a 6-10 football squad (in 2005).
I didn't run Bruce down; a few posts ago I said he's had a great career. But his production has clearly declined in the area of big plays and touchdowns over the past few years, while Curtis in limited play has been one of the most dynamic receivers in the entire league.ÂÂ
Also, if Bruce was drawing double coverage, what was Holt drawing. I think you've got it backwards there. If Curtis had been starting, giving the Rams two legitimate deep threats, Holt would have been covered less, not more.
Finally, the Rams very nearly waived Bruce after the '04 season for salary cap reasons, so he obviously wasn't regarded as indispensable. That's when the transition from Bruce to Curtis should have been made. If Bruce was white, he would have had to make way for the up and coming young black star (if Curtis was black), and rightly so while still being the team's third receiver. But the NFL's iron-clad racial code is what stalled Curtis' ascent, not less talent, or production when he played.
Jimmy Chitwood said:as for being a cancer in the locker room, what the hell?!? i've never heard ANYTHING but good stuff about Curtis, from how much he did in the community, to how intelligent and unselfish he was. does a locker room leader have to be black?[/QUOTE
Yes Kevin Curtis the Mormon is probably a clubhouse troublemaker, We all know the Mormon propensity for getting into trouble with their wild ways, their Donny and Marie music blaring while they try to marry as many woman as possible and have huge families. They regulary desert their teams to go on something called a "mission" which is probably some kind of satanic months long bender.
The Rams are better off with out him maybe they can talk a chararcter guy like Keyshawn Johnson out of retirement.
whiteCB said:
White Shogun said:Looks like we've done gone and stepped on the toes of a genuine Rams fan in this thread.
GSOT said:
I'm not sure if you're trying to say KC is a cancer in the locker room, or what is the point is of this paragraph? However, this attitude is what keeps good white running backs and other whites out of traditionally black positions in the first place. The blacks resent the intrusion of white players onto their 'turf,' complain incessantly and ostracize the white players until the coach finally benches or trades them.
Just because someone disagrees with your point of view does not mean that person knows nothing about the sport, either. Most of us here are of the opinion that Kevin Curtis has been held back by the caste system, regardless of how we may feel about his comparison to Isaac Bruce. Do you also agree that Curtis' career has been hampered by the fact that he is white? Some see his inability to replace Bruce in the lineup is a result of caste system bias. You don't think so. The fact remains however that we probably do agree that Curtis' career HAS been effected negatively by the caste system, without a doubt.
