What will the Rams record be this year?

[Trrrroy]

I'm gonna go with 9-7. That D is beastly, that O-line will improve, and Bradford is better than Clemens (by how much, though?). Still not sold on those receivers.

 

[RedAlice]

In general, I have no idea how the Rams will play this year. The D front looks strong and we have GW as DC now, but the secondary is still a big question. For the O, pleased with the RBs, but just no confidence that B will suddently turn into a good QB. Do have more confidence in S Hill playing better than Clemons if B gets hurt yet again. And O-Line is improved.

Plus, there is the fact that this young team played with some amazing undiscipline last year, and so need to see if that major problem is solved or continues. Very tired of the game killing penatlies.

I feel it swings one way or the other - a 4 win season or a 10+ win season.

 

[Vetamur]

I put them at 10-6 based on their monster defense and what should be a great running game this year.

I actually think I would have started Clemons over Bradford last year..but there isnt much to choose between them, but QB is a tricky position..the "light comes on" for some later than others.

 

[RedAlice]

I put them at 10-6 based on their monster defense and what should be a great running game this year.

I actually think I would have started Clemons over Bradford last year..but there isnt much to choose between them, but QB is a tricky position..the "light comes on" for some later than others.

The "light coming on" is the unknown: B does, or does not this year.

That is a major part of my no idea how the season goes. I am not either a B lover who brags his stats, or a hater who wants him gone. I just want to see him prove it. It's now or never.

I also think J Fisher wants to win without a strong QB. He seems to not value the position.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

Your team matches up poorly with the Whiners so, 0-2 there. Maybe a split with Seattle whom you match up better with so, 1-1. 4 east coast road games so, no better than 2-2 there. I see the Cards slipping this year so at least 1-1 there. That's 6 losses with 6 other games so unless you go 5-1 in those games you're looking at around 7-9 again.

Bradford will never be the guy you've always hoped he will be.

 

[RolandDeschain]

The "light coming on" is the unknown: B does, or does not this year.

The problem is, Bradford's light bulb is already on, and at max wattage:

 

[RolandDeschain]

LOL

It's funny 'cause he sucks.

 

[rideaducati]

Let's see... talented team? Check. Jeff Fisher is the coach? Yes. Your answer is 8-8.

 

[Scottemojo]

10-6. They have weaknesses, but I think their coach is going to get more out of their talent and game plan to their strenghts.

I honestly think they overtake the 49ers this year and also edge out the Cards who wont be able to overcome Palmer.

I could see your 10-6, IDK about overtaking the Niners, but I could see them being a lot like the Cards last year.

 

[kearly]

I could see them being a lot like the Cards last year.

One thing about the Cardinals, they were a steady team. They were in most games, their offense was roughly league average and balanced, and their 10.4 estimated wins was actually better than their 10-6 record.

The Rams are mysterious. They slaughtered the Colts in their own stadium. They had a few other blowout wins against tough teams. The early season Texans, the Bears, they even beat the Saints by 11. And yet, they still finished with a negative scoring differential, because they got blown out by teams like Arizona and Dallas. Not many teams lost to the Falcons last year. The Rams were one of them.

I take this as a sign that the Rams are a bad team that present matchup issues for certain opponents.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Lack of overall discipline played a far larger role in at least two of the Rams' horrific losses last year than any match-up issues, IMO.

Hell, look at their meltdown in our house in week 17.

 

[kearly]

Lack of overall discipline played a far larger role in at least two of the Rams' horrific losses last year than any match-up issues, IMO.

Hell, look at their meltdown in our house in week 17.

I was referring to games where the Rams won big or were really tough, they overachieved because they had matchup advantages in those games. Saints, Colts, etc. That's my theory anyway. The rest of the games they just weren't very good.

 

[RedAlice]

Your team matches up poorly with the Whiners so, 0-2 there. Maybe a split with Seattle whom you match up better with so, 1-1. 4 east coast road games so, no better than 2-2 there. I see the Cards slipping this year so at least 1-1 there. That's 6 losses with 6 other games so unless you go 5-1 in those games you're looking at around 7-9 again.

Bradford will never be the guy you've always hoped he will be.

I don't agree with that. They beat us easily last year: the first game was the same week as Dallas and those were both pure undisciplined disasters.

The year before the Niners could not beat the Rams in either of our division games. This team is an improvement on that team, so I disagree that we match up poorly with the Niners. I think we have a better chance of beating them than beating you.

 

[kearly]

I think it is kind of amusing that we make fun of pundits for annointing the Cardinals every offseason, and yet we Seahawk fans ourselves anoint the Rams, who deserve it even less. I guess that's to be expected, since the Rams have been such a pain in the ass for us that we forget how much they suck against most other teams.

Stacy hadn't burst on the scene yet with Bradford. Rams OL should get better as should their receiving corps with another year under the belt and (who I think anyways) Britt who is probably the best receiver Bradfords had.

Ogletree should continue to improve in the LB corps as well.... I think people are forgetting how many top picks theyve had the past few years.

Most NFL experts have Stacy pegged for decline in 2014. Their reasoning is that Stacy averaged 17 touches a game in college, but last season it was something like 27 a game over a portion of the season. There is a train of thought that he's not yet proven he can handle that load over a 16 game schedule. I don't know if I agree with it 100%, but I think they have a point. Stacy only averaged 3.9 YPC last season- his stats look good because he got a ton of carries. Worse yet, you look at his game log and his YPC varies wildly from game to game. I'm not the biggest fan of Mason either, their backfield kinda feels like Julius Jones and TJ Duckett to me.

Last year the Rams were a slightly better team with Clemens. Bradford is a backup caliber QB. His return is unlikely to benefit the team or Stacy.

Britt is a headcase and is coming off one of the worst seasons a receiver has had in recent memory. Dude had 96 yards receiving in 12 games with almost no competition around him at WR. If he was someone to worry about, he wouldn't have signed with a team like the Rams for close to the league minimum.

Ogletree was very good last year. Unless you think he's going to be Navarro Bowman 2.0 this year, I don't really see much improvement coming from that area.

The Rams will have an awesome pass rush though. And a crafty HC. If not for that they wouldn't be able to get to 7 wins every year.

 

[RedAlice]

The "light coming on" is the unknown: B does, or does not this year.

The problem is, Bradford's light bulb is already on, and at max wattage:

Too funny. And, too true most likely.

 

[kearly]

Your team matches up poorly with the Whiners so, 0-2 there. Maybe a split with Seattle whom you match up better with so, 1-1. 4 east coast road games so, no better than 2-2 there. I see the Cards slipping this year so at least 1-1 there. That's 6 losses with 6 other games so unless you go 5-1 in those games you're looking at around 7-9 again.

Bradford will never be the guy you've always hoped he will be.

I don't agree with that. They beat us easily last year: the first game was the same week as Dallas and those were both pure undisciplined disasters.

The year before the Niners could not beat the Rams in either of our division games. This team is an improvement on that team, so I disagree that we match up poorly with the Niners. I think we have a better chance of beating them than beating you.

It seems like slowly but surely Kaepernick is starting to get used to his divisional foes. He went 5-1 in the division last year before losing to Seattle in the playoffs. With each Seahawks game, he seems to get more and more comfortable. He hasn't figured out Seattle's defense yet, and probably never will, but you sense it's getting easier for him to compete against our team with each passing matchup.

When Kaepernick played the Rams in 2012, they were both weird games. And The first of those games was actually Kaep's first start ever.

But In 2013, Kaepernick looked like he had the Rams completely figured out. His Thursday Night game at St. Louis last year was amazing. The fans were booing their own team by halftime, and too tired to boo by the end of the 3rd quarter. That's how badly Kaepernick was handing their asses to them. Kaep shell shocked everyone in that dome and everyone at home watching who expected a tight game.

The December rematch was merely a two score win, but Kaepernick posted a nearly identical passer rating (115, 111) in both games. I think he has that defense figured out. His struggles in 2012 might be ancient history.

As a Seahawks fan, I hope to be wrong on that. But I would expect him to walk all over the Rams again in 2014.

 

[RedAlice]

Lack of overall discipline played a far larger role in at least two of the Rams' horrific losses last year than any match-up issues, IMO.

Hell, look at their meltdown in our house in week 17.

I was referring to games where the Rams won big or were really tough, they overachieved because they had matchup advantages in those games. Saints, Colts, etc. That's my theory anyway. The rest of the games they just weren't very good.

Ro is right here. When the Rams lost bad, it was pure undiscipline. Not only in the resulting and deadly penalties, but in the way that caused them to play.

The team who showed up to beat the Colts and Saints like a professional team who does this every week, is not even comparable to the team who played v Niners Thurs Night, Dallas, Panthers or you week 17. And, it's not match-ups or over achieving. It's playing as they should. Mostly, they play as they should not.

 

[RedAlice]

Most NFL experts have Stacy pegged for ....

Qutoe from Kearly.



Really, a Hawk fan is going to use "Most NFL experts" as a source of fact? Funny. Guess you have already forgotten, let's say, last year. Or the years prior.

I know what "Most NFL Experts" said prior to the SB.

 

[kearly]

The team who showed up to beat the Colts and Saints like a professional team who does this every week, is not even comparable to the team who played v Niners Thurs Night, Dallas, Panthers or you week 17. And, it's not match-ups or over achieving. It's playing as they should. Mostly, they play as they should not.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to take away how impressive those wins were. They were freaking impressive.

But when you have 4 games like that out of 16, can you really say that's how the team should play every week? Last year, the Seahawks blew out the 49ers, blew out the Saints, blew out the Broncos in XLVIII. They are the champs, but I would not expect them to play like that all the time. Further, I would say that matchups played a huge role in those blowout wins.

Ro is right here. When the Rams lost bad, it was pure undiscipline. Not only in the resulting and deadly penalties, but in the way that caused them to play.

http://www.nflpenalties.com/

The Rams only suffered 31 more yards in penalties than they benefited from last season, basically they were league average. (Seattle was actually dead last, at -353). Compared to Seattle, the Rams are disciplined.

When you play physical, nasty football, penalties are a cost of doing business.

 

[kearly]

Most NFL experts have Stacy pegged for ....

Qutoe from Kearly.



Really, a Hawk fan is going to use "Most NFL experts" as a source of fact? Funny. Guess you have already forgotten, let's say, last year. Or the years prior.

I know what "Most NFL Experts" said prior to the SB.

I don't always agree with what they say, but I think they have a point in this case. When you prorate his numbers, Stacy was on pace for something like ~350 carries over 16 games during his stint last season. His counting stats were inflated by unsustainably high reps. Stacy never handled a load even close to that kind of level in college. Also, his rate numbers (yards per carry, etc) were not good.

Maybe it works for Stacy. It seems to be working for Alfred Morris. Not saying it can't work, but I would say the evidence suggests it is somewhat less than likely. At the very least, we should probably slow our roll before we crown him a future 1500 yard rusher.