Are the Rams a playoff team?

[rideaducati]

The Seahawks had their biggest "win" before ever taking the field for a regular season game. On August 26, 1976 the Seahawks traded an eighth round pick in 1977 to the Houston Oilers for Steve Largent. The franchise's first win came on October 17 when they beat their expansion brethren Tampa Bay Buccaneers 13-10 at Tampa Bay. On November 7 they won their first game at home, 30-13 over the Atlanta Falcons.

----

Then, in the 90's when I was watching you drafted Dan McGwire as your QB, then you drafted Rick Mirer. Allen bought the team later in that decade.

In 1999, you hired Holmgreen. These are the years I remember well.

My point is not that you do not remember your recent "golden" years, of course you do!!!!!

My point is that you don't remember when you weren't good, and so now you talk smack as IF no other team who isn't good might be about to become good. I remember it all.

Wilson changed it for you. That is fact.

----

eta: I am answering whichever posters above challenged me with their "info" on recent Hawk history with no obvious recognition of actual history.

These have been the best times in Seahawk history, of course we are going to mention these times. The Seahawks rarely played the rams prior to realignment, so there isn't much to go on before that.

A lot of us remember the Seahawks prior to 2003. The constant middle of the pack team that was fun to watch. The underdog...always the underdog.

Getting upset and calling someone out because they didn't happen to mention the bad times in their post is rather silly. Especially when comparing current NFC West teams. The Seahawks and the rams played seven times between 1976 and 2001...hardly a rivalry over the first 25 years of Seahawk existence. They have played 29 times in the 15 years since realignment.

Long time Seahawk fans like myself are living in the present because the present is the best time ever to be a Seahawk fan...although the past wasn't nearly as bad as the past of every other NFC West team. The Seahawks haven't finished last in the NFC West...ever. Prior to realignment, the Seahawks only finished last in their division 7 times and have NEVER had the first overall pick in the draft.

The Seahawks history isn't as bad as you might want it to be. They have never been the perennial door mats like each of the other NFC West teams have been at one time or another.

Maybe it is you that is actually aflicted with a short memory.

 

[Ramfan128]

The Seahawks had their biggest "win" before ever taking the field for a regular season game. On August 26, 1976 the Seahawks traded an eighth round pick in 1977 to the Houston Oilers for Steve Largent. The franchise's first win came on October 17 when they beat their expansion brethren Tampa Bay Buccaneers 13-10 at Tampa Bay. On November 7 they won their first game at home, 30-13 over the Atlanta Falcons.

----

Then, in the 90's when I was watching you drafted Dan McGwire as your QB, then you drafted Rick Mirer. Allen bought the team later in that decade.

In 1999, you hired Holmgreen. These are the years I remember well.

My point is not that you do not remember your recent "golden" years, of course you do!!!!!

My point is that you don't remember when you weren't good, and so now you talk smack as IF no other team who isn't good might be about to become good. I remember it all.

Wilson changed it for you. That is fact.

----

eta: I am answering whichever posters above challenged me with their "info" on recent Hawk history with no obvious recognition of actual history.

These have been the best times in Seahawk history, of course we are going to mention these times. The Seahawks rarely played the rams prior to realignment, so there isn't much to go on before that.

A lot of us remember the Seahawks prior to 2003. The constant middle of the pack team that was fun to watch. The underdog...always the underdog.

Getting upset and calling someone out because they didn't happen to mention the bad times in their post is rather silly. Especially when comparing current NFC West teams. The Seahawks and the rams played seven times between 1976 and 2001...hardly a rivalry over the first 25 years of Seahawk existence. They have played 29 times in the 15 years since realignment.

Long time Seahawk fans like myself are living in the present because the present is the best time ever to be a Seahawk fan...although the past wasn't nearly as bad as the past of every other NFC West team. The Seahawks haven't finished last in the NFC West...ever. Prior to realignment, the Seahawks only finished last in their division 7 times and have NEVER had the first overall pick in the draft.

The Seahawks history isn't as bad as you might want it to be. They have never been the perennial door mats like each of the other NFC West teams have been at one time or another.

Maybe it is you that is actually aflicted with a short memory.

I'm not sure if I've ever discussed the subject with you on this board, but this is a statement I kind of take issue with. Some arguments with Seahawk fans spiral downward into history lessons - but if I pointed out how much better the Rams are historically than the Seahawks in certain categories, I get "Well the Rams have been around a lot longer" - wouldn't it also stand to reason that because we've been around longer, we've experienced more ebb and flow than the Seahawks? Will the Seahawks be consistent bottom dwellers sometime in the next 30 years? I'd say so.

And they may not have been as bad as some remember, but they were never super bowl contenders before 2005. That's 30 years of really not having a shot at winning the super bowl - sounds like they could have used the number 1 pick at some point in there.

 

[rideaducati]

The Seahawks had their biggest "win" before ever taking the field for a regular season game. On August 26, 1976 the Seahawks traded an eighth round pick in 1977 to the Houston Oilers for Steve Largent. The franchise's first win came on October 17 when they beat their expansion brethren Tampa Bay Buccaneers 13-10 at Tampa Bay. On November 7 they won their first game at home, 30-13 over the Atlanta Falcons.

----

Then, in the 90's when I was watching you drafted Dan McGwire as your QB, then you drafted Rick Mirer. Allen bought the team later in that decade.

In 1999, you hired Holmgreen. These are the years I remember well.

My point is not that you do not remember your recent "golden" years, of course you do!!!!!

My point is that you don't remember when you weren't good, and so now you talk smack as IF no other team who isn't good might be about to become good. I remember it all.

Wilson changed it for you. That is fact.

----

eta: I am answering whichever posters above challenged me with their "info" on recent Hawk history with no obvious recognition of actual history.

These have been the best times in Seahawk history, of course we are going to mention these times. The Seahawks rarely played the rams prior to realignment, so there isn't much to go on before that.

A lot of us remember the Seahawks prior to 2003. The constant middle of the pack team that was fun to watch. The underdog...always the underdog.

Getting upset and calling someone out because they didn't happen to mention the bad times in their post is rather silly. Especially when comparing current NFC West teams. The Seahawks and the rams played seven times between 1976 and 2001...hardly a rivalry over the first 25 years of Seahawk existence. They have played 29 times in the 15 years since realignment.

Long time Seahawk fans like myself are living in the present because the present is the best time ever to be a Seahawk fan...although the past wasn't nearly as bad as the past of every other NFC West team. The Seahawks haven't finished last in the NFC West...ever. Prior to realignment, the Seahawks only finished last in their division 7 times and have NEVER had the first overall pick in the draft.

The Seahawks history isn't as bad as you might want it to be. They have never been the perennial door mats like each of the other NFC West teams have been at one time or another.

Maybe it is you that is actually aflicted with a short memory.

I'm not sure if I've ever discussed the subject with you on this board, but this is a statement I kind of take issue with. Some arguments with Seahawk fans spiral downward into history lessons - but if I pointed out how much better the Rams are historically than the Seahawks in certain categories, I get "Well the Rams have been around a lot longer" - wouldn't it also stand to reason that because we've been around longer, we've experienced more ebb and flow than the Seahawks? Will the Seahawks be consistent bottom dwellers sometime in the next 30 years? I'd say so.

And they may not have been as bad as some remember, but they were never super bowl contenders before 2005. That's 30 years of really not having a shot at winning the super bowl - sounds like they could have used the number 1 pick at some point in there.

I'm sure there are "historical" categories that the rams appear to be better...besides having many many more years to accumulate those "better" stats, I can't think of even one off hand. Overall record? Nope. Win percentage? Nope. Super Bowl wins? Nope. Super Bowl appearances? Nope.

I'm sure you could go back further than the Super Bowl era, but nobody would care. You'd probably be even more depressed at being a rams fan than you already must be.

You're the one saying we Seahawk fans have such short memories... I don't get where our collective memories could have possibly been as bad as ram fan memories. Especially you "old time" fans who watched their team leave Cleveland.... and Los Angeles.... and St. Louis... Great memories I bet. Has there ever been a GOOD team relocated? People support winners...the rams don't win, they move.

 

[Maulbert]

Has there ever been a GOOD team relocated?

Actually.....the Rams. They won the NFL Championship in 1945 in Cleveland, and relocated to Los Angeles for the 1946 season.

 

[RedAlice]

I can assure you @ridaducati that as a Rams fan I am not depressed about it. Quite the opposite.

Hawks are and have been great here for awhile now - wasn't the original point.

As to one of your comments, we both have the exact same Super Bowl record and appearances record. So, while not better than the Hawks, it's also not worse. It is, however, older as you are currently very good and Rams are not yet again. Rams record happened, then yours did.

We've both lost to the Steelers and the Pats, and we've both beat a different team for our one win. We also both did it in the exact same order. However, there was one year between the Rams winning the SB and then losing to the Pats, and Hawks did it back to back years.

We are looking forward now, and Hawks are strong. Rams are working to get back to being so. It's all good. :thirishdrinkers:

 

[rideaducati]

Has there ever been a GOOD team relocated?

Actually.....the Rams. They won the NFL Championship in 1945 in Cleveland, and relocated to Los Angeles for the 1946 season.

I wanted to see if Alice knew this. Stow it Flo.

 

[rideaducati]

I can assure you @ridaducati that as a Rams fan I am not depressed about it. Quite the opposite.

Hawks are and have been great here for awhile now - wasn't the original point.

As to one of your comments, we both have the exact same Super Bowl record and appearances record. So, while not better than the Hawks, it's also not worse. It is, however, older as you are currently very good and Rams are not yet. Rams record happened, then yours did.

We've both lost to the Steelers and the Pats, and we've both beat a different team for our one win. We also both did it in the exact same order. However, there was one year between the Rams winning the SB and then losing to the Pats, and Hawks did it back to back years.

We are looking forward now, and Hawks are strong. Rams are working to get back to being so. It's all good. :thirishdrinkers:

I was just trying to point out the silliness of bringing up our past with a past like yours. I was amused.

 

[RedAlice]

I can assure you @ridaducati that as a Rams fan I am not depressed about it. Quite the opposite.

Hawks are and have been great here for awhile now - wasn't the original point.

As to one of your comments, we both have the exact same Super Bowl record and appearances record. So, while not better than the Hawks, it's also not worse. It is, however, older as you are currently very good and Rams are not yet. Rams record happened, then yours did.

We've both lost to the Steelers and the Pats, and we've both beat a different team for our one win. We also both did it in the exact same order. However, there was one year between the Rams winning the SB and then losing to the Pats, and Hawks did it back to back years.

We are looking forward now, and Hawks are strong. Rams are working to get back to being so. It's all good. :thirishdrinkers:

I was just trying to point out the silliness of bringing up our past with a past like yours. I was amused.

The same way I am amused by your posters who think you have always been this good.

 

[RedAlice]

Has there ever been a GOOD team relocated?

Actually.....the Rams. They won the NFL Championship in 1945 in Cleveland, and relocated to Los Angeles for the 1946 season.

I wanted to see if Alice knew this. Stow it Flo.

I am aware they won something in Cleveland, but to be honest I am a bit behind on both my 1945 memories and Cleveland.

 

[rideaducati]

I can assure you @ridaducati that as a Rams fan I am not depressed about it. Quite the opposite.

Hawks are and have been great here for awhile now - wasn't the original point.

As to one of your comments, we both have the exact same Super Bowl record and appearances record. So, while not better than the Hawks, it's also not worse. It is, however, older as you are currently very good and Rams are not yet. Rams record happened, then yours did.

We've both lost to the Steelers and the Pats, and we've both beat a different team for our one win. We also both did it in the exact same order. However, there was one year between the Rams winning the SB and then losing to the Pats, and Hawks did it back to back years.

We are looking forward now, and Hawks are strong. Rams are working to get back to being so. It's all good. :thirishdrinkers:

I was just trying to point out the silliness of bringing up our past with a past like yours. I was amused.

The same way I am amused by your posters who think you have always been this good.

I must have missed those posters, but can understand that Seahawk fans under 25 years old have actually had a pretty good run with this team.

 

[RedAlice]

Yes they have. (and, that's actually pretty cool for them).

Was always interesting to me that the StL fans only hated the Hawks and seemed to like the Niners just fine.


eta: I also think you confuse who you are posting with. You were arguing w a different poster than me. Granted, he's a great Rams poster, so I see the confusion.

 

[Maulbert]

Yes they have. (and, that's actually pretty cool for them).

Was always interesting to me that the StL fans only hated the Hawks and seemed to like the Niners just fine.

Niners fans always seemed to hate the Rams. While legacy Rams fans no doubt felt enmity for the Niners, I don't think that rivalry stood up to the relocation to St. Louis, especially since the Rams got good about the same time the 49ers started falling in the toilet. Then of course the Seahawks came in and put their stamp on the NFC West a couple years later, which didn't rest well with the Rams, who were the previous kings of the castle. Honestly, I think a lot of the Seattle hate comes from taking dominant control of the division just a couple years after joining. I mean, think about it. Historically speaking, either the Rams or Niners dominated this division for the last 40 years before Seattle came along.

 

[RedAlice]

Yes they have. (and, that's actually pretty cool for them).

Was always interesting to me that the StL fans only hated the Hawks and seemed to like the Niners just fine.

Niners fans always seemed to hate the Rams. While legacy Rams fans no doubt felt enmity for the Niners, I don't think that rivalry stood up to the relocation to St. Louis, especially since the Rams got good about the same time the 49ers started falling in the toilet. Then of course the Seahawks came in and put their stamp on the NFC West a couple years later, which didn't rest well with the Rams, who were the previous kings of the castle. Honestly, I think a lot of the Seattle hate comes from taking dominate control of the division just a couple years after joining. I mean, think about it. Historically speaking, either the Rams or Niners dominated this division for the last 40 years before Seattle came along.

You are correct on the Hawks joining and becoming relevant.

All StL fans I've met in person or online have a bitter hatred for the Hawks. It's current, it's now since obviously we know the records of both teams recent.

Old school Rams fans have a bigger hatred of the Niners. The rivalry did not stand up for the StL fans only because the Niners failed to be good enough to earn it. So, they just started hating the Hawks.

I guess I will now have to ask the LA fans which team they hate more. I honestly don't know that answer. It's still Niners for me.

Now I'm curious.

 

[Maulbert]

Yes they have. (and, that's actually pretty cool for them).

Was always interesting to me that the StL fans only hated the Hawks and seemed to like the Niners just fine.

Niners fans always seemed to hate the Rams. While legacy Rams fans no doubt felt enmity for the Niners, I don't think that rivalry stood up to the relocation to St. Louis, especially since the Rams got good about the same time the 49ers started falling in the toilet. Then of course the Seahawks came in and put their stamp on the NFC West a couple years later, which didn't rest well with the Rams, who were the previous kings of the castle. Honestly, I think a lot of the Seattle hate comes from taking dominate control of the division just a couple years after joining. I mean, think about it. Historically speaking, either the Rams or Niners dominated this division for the last 40 years before Seattle came along.

You are correct on the Hawks joining and becoming relevant.

All StL fans I've met in person or online have a bitter hatred for the Hawks. It's current, it's now since obviously we know the records of both teams recent.

Old school Rams fans have a bigger hatred of the Niners. The rivalry did not stand up for the StL fans only because the Niners failed to be good enough to earn it. So, they just started hating the Hawks.

I guess I will now have to ask the LA fans which team they hate more. I honestly don't know that answer. It's still Niners for me.

Now I'm curious.

I fully expect the move to LA to fire up the Rams/Niners rivalry. I think all the rivalries will get a boost from the move. Close(r) proximity does that. I am happy the NFL actually has a true western division now.

 

[chris98251]

Seahawks played in one of the toughest divisions in the league as an expansion team, Raiders, at the height of their intimidation, talent and success, Broncos with Elway and Reeves and Shannahan, Chargers with Fouts and that offense and Coryell, Cheifs with the defense they had and the Nigerian Nightmare. We stil won games, we still made it to the playoffs and a just short of a Division championship game. We rarely sucked and were in games most times by hook or crook.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Yes they have. (and, that's actually pretty cool for them).

Was always interesting to me that the StL fans only hated the Hawks and seemed to like the Niners just fine.

Niners fans always seemed to hate the Rams. While legacy Rams fans no doubt felt enmity for the Niners, I don't think that rivalry stood up to the relocation to St. Louis, especially since the Rams got good about the same time the 49ers started falling in the toilet. Then of course the Seahawks came in and put their stamp on the NFC West a couple years later, which didn't rest well with the Rams, who were the previous kings of the castle. Honestly, I think a lot of the Seattle hate comes from taking dominant control of the division just a couple years after joining. I mean, think about it. Historically speaking, either the Rams or Niners dominated this division for the last 40 years before Seattle came along.

It wasn't that hard when you're other competitors were Atlanta and New Orleans. Meanwhile we dealt with teams that historically were regularly among the AFC's premier teams. Denver, Kansas City, Oakland, San Diego. And did far more than just draw blood we held our own most years and even came out on top more than a few times. Better yet were never truly hopeless even in the bad years, until Ken Behring and the "dark years". Even at our worst it was Rick Mirer and Dan Maguire. I've seen far worse.

Does that 15 years in the NFCW account for the fact we started in that division our first year? We only went to the AFCW because Tampa Bay is our expansion partner and agreed to the stupid switch in a backroom deal with the creveat that once realignment happened we'd be in NFCW forever as originally intended.

 

[RedAlice]

M, I think you have the labels backwards, but I am Loving this talk from you, Chris and anyone who else wants to keep talking on your history in the AFC W. Hawks have a good history.

I made a random, snide comment and am now reaping great rewards.

Yes, you earned your spot in the AFC W. Keep talking....this is fun to remember. I only know some things, I wasn't fully involved.

loves.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Well what else would you like to know? I'm hoping you know about the real Rams before San Francisco started to pull ahead? Atlanta and New Orleans never became truly relevant until Matt Ryan and Drew Brees. They had a year or two of success every so often, problem was that division was all about the Los Angeles Rams (feels good to say that again) and the team I grew up with the San Francisco 49ers. Bet I surprised you just a little with that A.

I love talking history because it gives you the context and why for example my father hates the Rams while I hate Oakland and Denver. I never have hated Kansas City or San Diego because they have never been long-term winners in the modern era, my era. For me San Francisco is my true hate because of Montana and his band. I'm excited to see if your team can actually be a real rivalry for us like Oakland in the AFCW. That team beat us when we were actually elite. 12-4 heavy favorites in AFCCG and they just laugh and go 13-3 and school us.

Thinking on it that may have been year the NFL decided to invent the wildcard because we stayed home with the second best record in the NFL. AFCW was ridiculously deep and strong back then especially after the rule changes to stop Oakland and Pittsburgh.

 

[RedAlice]

My gut memory as young girl is hating Oakland, hating Niners and adoring the Bears. This is one reason why I support Fisher.

From pure young memory, I always thought any team should be afraid when they played the Raiders or the Bears. I've always wanted my team to be the one to fear. Hence, why it does not bother me when Hawk fans complain about bad play from the Rams. And, why I respect the Hawks because other teams fear them.

It seems to be called smash mouth, or some such now - it's simply football done correctly.

Now that I am more involved in following this sport, I am enamored w Oakland and what they are doing. I hope they own the AFC soon.

And yes, I've been a Rams fan since a boy showed me the game which is early 80's. So, yes I remember a lot.

 

[RedAlice]

As to the Chargers. I moved here years ago and I was a a Rams fan. Rams have been far worse in this time than the Chargers. But, the Chargers no matter their win/loss record, have always been a weak team. I have never been able to become their fan, even though I love their city.

Weak team.