Were the Rams going 7-9 in 2010 a fluke?

[Lesson]

Wins were against:

Seahawks(Home)
Cardinals(Road)
Redskins(Home)
Broncos(Road)
Chargers(Home)
Panthers(Home)
49ers(Home)

Only one of those wins were against a team that finished above .500(Chargers).

Losses were against:

Seahawks(Road)
Raiders(Road)
49ers(Road)
Cardinals(Home)
Chiefs(Home)
Saints(Road)
Falcons(Home)
Buccaneers(Road)
Lions(Road)

4 losses were against teams with a sub .500 record, 4 above .500, 1 at .500

Were the Rams just a fluke or did that team show what a healthy team in the future could be?

 

[steferfootball]

I voted no. I said it then, and I'll say it now, but that team was still devoid of talent. It was an easy schedule, and the Rams won more games than how good they were, but I do think they were on to something.

Everyone blew us out in 09. There was a world of difference if you just consider this.

 

[Lesson]

Everyone blew us out in 09. There was a world of difference if you just consider this.

9 losses of 10+ points.

I understand the circumstances. But still, that is unacceptable.


23 of the Rams 38 losses during Spags' tenure were by 10+ points.

That's crazy.

 

[superfan24]

I voted no too. There were so many close games that the Rams shoulda won too. Such as Arizona at home, Oakland, and Tampa Bay. O ya and got screwed in SF. We are gonna be pretty damn good next year with everyone healthy because of the foundation that BD and Spags put together.

 

[steferfootball]

Everyone blew us out in 09. There was a world of difference if you just consider this.

9 losses of 10+ points.

I understand the circumstances. But still, that is unacceptable.

I am referring to 2009 vs 2010.

2010 we were -39 net points. 2009 we were -261. Basically that is what I was getting at.

 

[DR RAM]

no. I think we should have won 3 more games.

 

[Angry Ram]

No way. You don't win 7 games by "fluke." Especially in the NFL, you earn most of those games except those few in b/w won by pure luck whether it be by a ref missing a call or a fumble going a certain way.

We damn near could've lost the Chargers game if Jackson didn't go that last 3rd down, and could've lost the Broncos game.

Had that happened, it would've been 5-11.

Of course if Clifton Ryan ran a little bit faster, and that ref didn't call Robbins on a BS roughing penalty, and the phantom PI on Atogwe vs. SF, they might've been 10-6. Yeah I said it.

 

[Ram Quixote]

The strength of schedule helped, but remember, we did have a stretch of 3 straight road games and won the first 2.

(Lesson, the game against Denver was in Denver.)

We all watched the games. We convincingly won 5 of those 7 games, and lost 4 games we could have won. That's not a fluke in the NFL.

There was a lot of praise aimed at Spags (and Devaney) last year, and now they're both gone. I find that incredibly short sighted.

Morris and Haley won more games last year, and they're gone too, but they had other problems in house that led to their terminations. Spags was let go because of impatience and the almighty NFL bottom line.

But I agree that Spags' roster decisions may have contributed to his firing. IMO, Spags preferred a seasoned defense, but that didn't help him at all through the first 6 games. How many weeks went by before Chamberlain got his chance at Will?

 

[Lesson]

(Lesson, the game against Denver was in Denver.)

Typo. My mistake.

Anyways, I agree with you for the most part. The thing with Haley, though, is what I believe is tension with Pioli. From what's been said about Spags and Billy D., that wasn't a problem(though Spags' statement leads others to think otherwise). And the players flat out quit on Raheem.

I will say this, though. Spags didn't lose the locker room like Linehan did, didn't allow punks like Incognito to have a place here(Dahl isn't a punk, just a complete bad ass) and is one of the classiest coaches that I know of.