Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
What's going on with the Rams and Chargers then?
|
I was speaking of the Raiders who came from the absolute worst facilities in the league to one of the better ones. Vikings also seem to be riding the wave of being in a top of the line new facility. Rams and Chargers are kind of a head scratcher for sure seeing the facilities are new and some of their low scores are facility ratings. It's possible Kroenke placed more emphasis on the stadium than locker rooms and training facilities but you would think given the astronomical cost of that stadium that everything would be top notch.
Edit. Out of curiosity I did a search and it appears the new stadium doesn't have training facilities and it appears the Rams have or had at the time of polling a temporary training facility.
Quote:
|
Part of the reason for the Rams’ poor grades is the fact that they don’t have a permanent training facility, using a temporary one at Cal Lutheran in Thousand Oaks.
|
Quote:
|
Players do not feel that the “temporary” facility was built to support professional athletes, and unsurprisingly, in the opinions of player respondents, it leaves a lot to be desired.
|
https://theramswire.usatoday.com/lis...-card-ranking/
Chargers as well.
Quote:
|
To be fair, the Chargers have an excuse for some of the poor grades. As the NFLPA report card itself points out, the Chargers are currently operating out of a converted office, using that as a temporary facility while their updated one is currently under construction. Needless to say, since the office building wasn’t designed for NFL use, it’s not going to have everything the players want. The new facility should be up and running in 2024, which will boost up some of the grades.
|
https://lastwordonsports.com/nfl/202...-nflpa-survey/