adeltaY":2zg35gb8 said:
I hope so. They were really lacking in that department for most of the game, then Clark showed up with a filthy move for the strip sack against one of the best pass blocking LT in the league. Reed helping force the Goff pick to ETIII earlier was also a great sign.
The weird thing is that the D barely had any rest in the second half. The O kept going 3 and out and it felt like the pass rush got better despite being on the field for so long. Not like the Rams were down multiple scores and had to exclusively pass (until the last drive) either. Weird, but great to see.
Our defense was in football shape, but not conditioned to endure heat stress as in the previous game, and that game in San Diego a couple of years ago.
My hunch is that both Avril and Bennett are gone for this season, subject to some medical miracles with stem cells, DMSO, and who knows what.
If so, then we are now down two and up one, so the depth is less, and so the offense really needs to improve to rest the defense.
This is the price we pay from training up a new offensive line every year --- it exposes our strong defense to unnecessary injuries by keeping them on the field longer, and thus reduces defensive depth, which we need to go all the way.
This hurts the football product for all the teams that do not already have a good offensive line. QBs get hurt because of this. I think Russell got hit eleven times by the Rams, and one was very hard, and three were sacks. Game quality decreases. Viewership decreases. And advertiser revenue decreases. Owner profits decrease.
And all because the owners did not want to pay the players for more OTAs. I predict they will agree to do this for the next CBA if viewership does not increase, which I don't think it will.
Just follow the money to understand the past, and to predict the future.