What will the Rams record be this year?

Discuss any and all NFL-related topics and matters of interest here. RATING: PG-13
What will the Rams record be this year?
Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:25 am
  • Its good to get an outside perspective on my team. It's been a long time since we've been at 500 or better. We have the 3rd hardest schedule. What record do you see us finishing with? Obviously I hope we go 16-0 but I sure hope we don't end up 1-15 or 0-16!!! Thanks!
    Ramsfan
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 4
    Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:09 pm


  • NFL board perhaps.
    UGotHawked
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 282
    Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:24 pm


  • I am going to guess 9-7, and miss the playoffs. Great defensive line, lack of weapons on offense minus Zac Stacy, and I believe the worst coach in the toughest division in the NFL. I think Fisher is over-rated. However, the first winning season in the better part of a decade is exciting, trust me. I know I am a Cardinals fan! We like you are always "sleepers", on the verge of having a break out year, with all the talent in the world.
    ringless
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 164
    Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 8:37 am


  • 7-9.

    If the Rams had taken Manziel and Donald instead of Robinson and Donald, I would revise this to 10-6.
    "If given the opportunity without fear of incarceration, I would honestly beat the living **** out of Jerry Rice."

    --Internet tough guy HawkWow being a MAN on the internet
    User avatar
    Smelly McUgly
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3754
    Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:30 pm
    Location: God's Country AKA Cascadia AKA The Pacific Northwest


  • 8-8. Too tough a division.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3540
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • Marvin49 wrote:8-8. Too tough a division.


    Dead on.

    #1 Dome team... that hurts on the road.

    #2 Jeff Fisher coaches great defenses (some would say dirty defense), but his quarterbacks always seem to regress, and as go the QB's so go the offenses.

    #3 Jeff Fisher again. His teams lack discipline and attract soul crushing penalties at crucial game moments.

    #4 Terrible Secondary. They can't handle physical receivers and any QB with a quick release is going to burn them good. I expect Manning to light them up. Wilson struggles against them because he holds the ball too long.

    They go 0-2 against the 49ers and if they are lucky they split with the Seahawks this year (they could easily go 0-2 against the hawks as well). And they split with the Cards.

    Phillip Rivers and Peyton Manning... two losses there. They have to go out and play on the east coast 4 times -- NY Giants, Washington, Tampa Bay, and Philly... so they lose two of those almost guaranteed.

    What are we up to? 7-8 losses? Yea, sounds about right. 8-8. 9-7 if they play well and manage a split against the Seahawks.
    User avatar
    The_Z_Man
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 860
    Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 5:57 pm
    Location: Tucson, AZ


  • I'm on the fence between thinking 8-8 and 9-7.

    Sam Bradford.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26414
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • Smelly McUgly wrote:7-9.

    If the Rams had taken Manziel and Donald instead of Robinson and Donald, I would revise this to 10-6.


    I don't think Manziel would have been he answer, or anyone's answer for that matter lol. But I do agree they should have gone QB before O-line. Or maybe traded back and used the extra picks to get someone like Savage and another OT.

    I'm saying 7-9
    Don't let the username fool you, I bleed red and gold.
    User avatar
    Sherminator
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 381
    Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 10:29 am


  • 8-8 or 9-7 can't really decide yet.
    43-8...it's all about that action boss....
    next man up.
    User avatar
    MizzouHawkGal
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7818
    Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:46 pm
    Location: Kansas City, MO


  • The Rams last season had a slightly higher winning percentage with Kellen Clemens. Which is saying something, since Bradford only played two NFC West games, Clemens had four, including both games against Seattle.

    Where are the Rams getting better? Pass rush? The Rams formula seems to be pass rush and not much else.

    7-9.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11210
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • Bradford is not the answer, sorry. 7-9
    Kaiser
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 316
    Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:42 am


  • 6-10.

    Wild ass guess.
    "Authority should derive from the consent of the governed, not from the threat of force."

    - Barbie from Toy Story 3
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2483
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • kearly wrote:The Rams last season had a slightly higher winning percentage with Kellen Clemens. Which is saying something, since Bradford only played two NFC West games, Clemens had four, including both games against Seattle.

    Where are the Rams getting better? Pass rush? The Rams formula seems to be pass rush and not much else.

    7-9.



    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.
    bigcc
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 886
    Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:07 pm


  • bigcc wrote:
    kearly wrote:The Rams last season had a slightly higher winning percentage with Kellen Clemens. Which is saying something, since Bradford only played two NFC West games, Clemens had four, including both games against Seattle.

    Where are the Rams getting better? Pass rush? The Rams formula seems to be pass rush and not much else.

    7-9.



    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.

    With their Defense, I wouldn't be totally shocked if they passed the whiners, as I think they will fall back, it just matters how much.......
    SEATTLE SEAHAWKS SUPERBOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS!

    May the spirit of our friend The Radish live on forever!
    User avatar
    Sports Hernia
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 11934
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:36 pm
    Location: Lombardi Land


  • 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.
    “If somebody thinks they're a hedgehog, presumably you just give them a mirror and a few pictures of hedgehogs and tell them to sort it out for themselves.”
    Vetamur
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 6084
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:41 pm


  • I don't feel that the Rams are going to even come close to the Niners. Yeah, they have the front, but so does everyone else. I would have to see some serious growth on offense to think otherwise. Bradford might have had some fair stats before he was hurt, but the Rams were losing games that many projected they would win before the season started.

    I just get the feeling that Bradford isn't going to cut it in this division. Both SF/SEA have QBs that can extend drives with their legs, while performing differently, CK and RW have that extra move. Bradford isn't a statue, but he isn't getting away from danger like CKRW. It keeps the Rams from advancing in this division.

    8-8
    "The life you lose may be your own" - Drunk dude at the bar
    User avatar
    loafoftatupu
    I'M JIMMY!
     
    Posts: 5885
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:17 pm
    Location: Auburn, WA


  • 8-8 and it's Bradford's last season starting for them if there smart.
    User avatar
    General Manager
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2260
    Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:04 pm


  • I know it's hindsight, but when they were making those deals and they traded to Washington, the Rams could have easily had Griffin and traded Bradford for picks. No, they would not have received the same in return, but they would have had a healthy RG3 and some picks anyway.

    No one knows if Griffin would be hurt, but he certainly would have brought more than Bradford and been the 3rd very mobile QB in the division.
    "The life you lose may be your own" - Drunk dude at the bar
    User avatar
    loafoftatupu
    I'M JIMMY!
     
    Posts: 5885
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:17 pm
    Location: Auburn, WA


  • The Rams, through the moves they made with the picks they got from WAS, got Greg Robinson, Isaiah Pead, Rokevious Watkins, Janoris Jenkins, Zac Stacy, Steadman Bailey, and Alec Olgetree.

    I think they would have clearly won the trade if they had picked a decent QB somewhere in there, like if they traded out of #2 this year and took Manziel or Bridgewater or if they took Mike Glennon instead of Steadman Bailey in 2013.

    However, they still won the trade because WAS has too many holes for Griffin to cover up - they were more than a generational QB away - and the Rams at least now have a solid OL, a good starting RB, and some pieces on defense to be close to dominant on that side of the ball.

    It's just that Bradford is a fringe starter/solid backup type, and he won't get them where they want to be, especially in this division.
    "If given the opportunity without fear of incarceration, I would honestly beat the living **** out of Jerry Rice."

    --Internet tough guy HawkWow being a MAN on the internet
    User avatar
    Smelly McUgly
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3754
    Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:30 pm
    Location: God's Country AKA Cascadia AKA The Pacific Northwest


  • 7 - 9 or 8 - 8. Problems? Fisher is a career mediocre coach averaging 3rd in his respective division the entire time he has been an NFL coach.

    Bradford is never going to lead any team deep in the playoffs. The Rams have needed to get a young, future qb for a few years now, they have ignored that in favor of a bad draft pick that they refuse to give up on, even though everyone else laughs at him.
    OrFan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2921
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:54 pm


  • The name alone gave me hesitation based on the very similar name to "RamzFanz" - but hopefully you are a nice, normal and reasonable Rams' fan. If so, happy to see you posting here.
    Los Angeles Rams' fan who lives in San Diego.
    User avatar
    RedAlice
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 704
    Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:47 am
    Location: San Diego


  • 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.
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2867
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


  • 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.
    Los Angeles Rams' fan who lives in San Diego.
    User avatar
    RedAlice
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 704
    Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:47 am
    Location: San Diego


  • 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.
    “If somebody thinks they're a hedgehog, presumably you just give them a mirror and a few pictures of hedgehogs and tell them to sort it out for themselves.”
    Vetamur
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 6084
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:41 pm


  • Vetamur wrote: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.
    Los Angeles Rams' fan who lives in San Diego.
    User avatar
    RedAlice
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 704
    Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:47 am
    Location: San Diego


  • 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.
    From the white sands
    To the canyon lands
    To the redwood stands
    To the barren lands

    Image

    Proud member of the 38 club
    User avatar
    hawksfansinceday1
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 11797
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


  • RedAlice wrote: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:

    Image
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26414
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    RedAlice wrote: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:

    Image


    LOL

    It's funny 'cause he sucks.
    Colt 45 and two zig zags.
    User avatar
    peachesenregalia
    * NET Starfish *
     
    Posts: 11026
    Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:29 am
    Location: Helm's Deep


  • peachesenregalia wrote:LOL

    It's funny 'cause he sucks.


    Image
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26414
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • Let's see... talented team? Check. Jeff Fisher is the coach? Yes. Your answer is 8-8.
    rideaducati
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1881
    Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:18 pm


  • Vetamur wrote: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.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11244
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • Scottemojo wrote: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.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11210
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • 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.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26414
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • RolandDeschain wrote: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.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11210
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • hawksfansinceday1 wrote: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.
    Los Angeles Rams' fan who lives in San Diego.
    User avatar
    RedAlice
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 704
    Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:47 am
    Location: San Diego


  • 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.

    bigcc wrote: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.
    Last edited by kearly on Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11210
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    RedAlice wrote: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:

    Image



    Too funny. And, too true most likely.
    Los Angeles Rams' fan who lives in San Diego.
    User avatar
    RedAlice
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 704
    Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:47 am
    Location: San Diego


  • RedAlice wrote:
    hawksfansinceday1 wrote: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.
    Last edited by kearly on Mon Jul 21, 2014 7:12 pm, edited 4 times in total.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11210
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • kearly wrote:
    RolandDeschain wrote: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.
    Los Angeles Rams' fan who lives in San Diego.
    User avatar
    RedAlice
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 704
    Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:47 am
    Location: San Diego


  • 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.
    Los Angeles Rams' fan who lives in San Diego.
    User avatar
    RedAlice
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 704
    Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:47 am
    Location: San Diego


  • RedAlice wrote: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.

    RedAlice wrote: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.
    Last edited by kearly on Mon Jul 21, 2014 7:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11210
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • RedAlice wrote: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.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11210
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • kearly wrote:
    RedAlice wrote: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.


    Yes, I can. I am not talking about a blow out win each week, just some consistency and discipline even when losing. Your team is on a much higher plain then the Rams, so it's really not possible to go to the comparison that you just did.
    Los Angeles Rams' fan who lives in San Diego.
    User avatar
    RedAlice
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 704
    Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:47 am
    Location: San Diego


  • kearly wrote:
    RedAlice wrote: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.


    Stacy also was not the starter at the beginning of the season. And he played the majority of his games with a back-up QB who was just above decent. IMO, what he did last year is harder than what many other RBs you probably admire did. And he did it while playing in the divison with the strongest D's in the league. Not like he was playing w the Pats v those front lines.

    His carries will be less this season, that is true.
    Los Angeles Rams' fan who lives in San Diego.
    User avatar
    RedAlice
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 704
    Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:47 am
    Location: San Diego


  • Those 4 games are outliers. Good teams and bad teams alike have outlier performances.

    I'm not saying the Rams got lucky in those games, but it's not a question of consistency. A blowout doesn't happen because just one of the teams played their game, that is unless the matchups are extremely in their favor that day.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11210
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • kearly wrote:Those 4 games are outliers. Good teams and bad teams alike have outlier performances.

    I'm not saying the Rams got lucky in those games, but it's not a question of consistency. A blowout doesn't happen because just one of the teams played their game, that is unless the matchups are extremely in their favor that day.



    We will have to agree to disagree. I do like that you know quite a bit about the Rams, and even if I disagree with you - you have supporting reasons for your opinions. Respect.
    Los Angeles Rams' fan who lives in San Diego.
    User avatar
    RedAlice
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 704
    Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:47 am
    Location: San Diego


  • RedAlice wrote:Stacy also was not the starter at the beginning of the season. And he played the majority of his games with a back-up QB who was just above decent. IMO, what he did last year is harder than what many other RBs you probably admire did. And he did it while playing in the divison with the strongest D's in the league. Not like he was playing w the Pats v those front lines.

    His carries will be less this season, that is true.


    Yup, it's a tough slate no doubt. But unfortunately for the Rams, those NFC West run defenses probably aren't going away any time soon.

    I know Clemens rate stats weren't quite as good as Bradford's, but the Rams were a better team when he was under center. Better win percentage, better point differential, better DVOA performances. The Rams were kinda sorta scary there for a while with Clemens.

    The fact that the team actually improved after Bradford went down should probably quiet any notions that he's the long term answer in St. Louis. My biggest fear in the 2014 draft was that you guys were going to draft Manziel or Bridgewater. I had nightmares of you guys getting Watkins and Manziel with your two picks. Tavon Austin could be so good with a zany QB like Manziel throwing to him.

    There are a lot of weaknesses on the Rams that could be covered up with an elite QB. The Rams haven't posted a winning season in a decade, and this is the reason why.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11210
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • RedAlice wrote:
    kearly wrote:Those 4 games are outliers. Good teams and bad teams alike have outlier performances.

    I'm not saying the Rams got lucky in those games, but it's not a question of consistency. A blowout doesn't happen because just one of the teams played their game, that is unless the matchups are extremely in their favor that day.



    We will have to agree to disagree. I do like that you know quite a bit about the Rams, and even if I disagree with you - you have supporting reasons for your opinions. Respect.


    Understand, I am not using "matchups" as somekind of buzzword to undermine a team's victory. The Colts beat the Seahawks, 49ers, and Broncos. And they got raped in their own stadium by the Rams. There are probably explainable reasons for that. The Colts vertical offense is a bad matchup for Seattle's cover three. Luck throws a lot of picks when you pressure him, and the Rams have one of the best pass rushes in the league.

    When I say "matchups", I'm simply talking about the logistics of how teams win football games. There are specific things the Colts did to make the Seahawks look bad, and there are specific things the Rams did to make the Colts look bad.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11210
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • kearly wrote:
    RedAlice wrote:Stacy also was not the starter at the beginning of the season. And he played the majority of his games with a back-up QB who was just above decent. IMO, what he did last year is harder than what many other RBs you probably admire did. And he did it while playing in the divison with the strongest D's in the league. Not like he was playing w the Pats v those front lines.

    His carries will be less this season, that is true.


    Yup, it's a tough slate no doubt. But unfortunately for the Rams, those NFC West run defenses probably aren't going away any time soon.

    I know Clemens rate stats weren't quite as good as Bradford's, but the Rams were a better team when he was under center. Better win percentage, better point differential, better DVOA performances. The Rams were kinda sorta scary there for a while with Clemens.

    The fact that the team actually improved after Bradford went down should probably quiet any notions that he's the long term answer in St. Louis. My biggest fear in the 2014 draft was that you guys were going to draft Manziel or Bridgewater. I had nightmares of you guys getting Watkins and Manziel with your two picks. Tavon Austin could be so good with a zany QB like Manziel throwing to him.

    There are a lot of weaknesses on the Rams that could be covered up with an elite QB. The Rams haven't posted a winning season in a decade, and this is the reason why.


    Says the Preacher to the Choir.
    Los Angeles Rams' fan who lives in San Diego.
    User avatar
    RedAlice
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 704
    Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:47 am
    Location: San Diego


  • kearly wrote:
    RedAlice wrote:
    kearly wrote:Those 4 games are outliers. Good teams and bad teams alike have outlier performances.

    I'm not saying the Rams got lucky in those games, but it's not a question of consistency. A blowout doesn't happen because just one of the teams played their game, that is unless the matchups are extremely in their favor that day.



    We will have to agree to disagree. I do like that you know quite a bit about the Rams, and even if I disagree with you - you have supporting reasons for your opinions. Respect.


    Understand, I am not using "matchups" as somekind of buzzword to undermine a team's victory. The Colts beat the Seahawks, 49ers, and Broncos. And they got raped in their own stadium by the Rams. There are probably explainable reasons for that. The Colts vertical offense is a bad matchup for Seattle's cover three. Luck throws a lot of picks when you pressure him, and the Rams have one of the best pass rushes in the league.

    When I say "matchups", I'm simply talking about the logistics of how teams win football games. There are specific things the Colts did to make the Seahawks look bad, and there are specific things the Rams did to make the Colts look bad.


    I am a fan of the Colts. I watched more of their games last season than I did any other team that is not the Rams. Well, I am friends with a huge Colts fan, so I was mostly forced to do so. They have the Chargers ex-DC as their DC, and he's a friend of many friends around here. Yay Greg.

    I still don't agree with you. Yes, Luck does. Colts and Saints are not the same team. I still, after the good and the bad of last season and after watching those games over and over, I still think the Rams just need some focus and discipline and sense of something not definable. They have no leader.

    The games they lost in massive disaster fashion, Kearly, those games were not lost because of a bad match-up. Not at all.
    Los Angeles Rams' fan who lives in San Diego.
    User avatar
    RedAlice
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 704
    Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:47 am
    Location: San Diego


Next


It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 1:41 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ NFL NATION ]




Information
  • Who is online