A Different View Of Things

[had]

It's easy to look at the record in a vacuum and say it wasn't good enough and that's not totally unfair. We can also look at the age or players and injuries and so on and that's not totally unfair. We can even say the coaching staff didn't start the season as well prepared as they maybe should have been, and an argument could be made for that as well. All of these things can be considered contributing factors but they are not the main reason for the record.

I think the single biggest reason for the record is the division. Three of the top 5 teams are in the NFCW. imagine if the Rams were in the East or North. In the North they would have won two or three more games, maybe even four and taken that division crown, and you could say the same about the East. They would have at least been a wild card I would speculate.

In the AFC East and North it's also possible the same happens.

When I look at the entire picture in a sort of post season review the first thing that's jumping out about why they didn't win 9-10 games is the division, then Bradford going down, then the rest of the stuff everyone likes to argue about all lumped in together (that to me has become largely irrelevant).

This means other than the Rams still having a whole lot of work to do they will also have to rely on some help from SF and SEA, as in those two playing at a lower level than they have the last two years.

The single biggest reason for the Rams record is the division. In the NFC East or North, we'd be contenders. Going forward, the niners and Seahawks will play down (to the Rams).

These are the talking points, yes?

And, Bradford went down.

To me, the single biggest reason for the Rams record was that they played a lot of bad football.

Bad football. Bad blocking, bad tackling, bad execution. It would be, in my opinion, a mistake to simply assume the team will *develop* next year and eliminate the bad football.

There's no telling how this team will play next year. Absolutely no telling. Doesn't matter who they draft. Doesn't matter who they sign in FA.

We all wait, and hope.

 

[Alan]

To had or had not. Good to see you posting again had! :wink:

 

[Thordaddy]

The single biggest reason for the Rams record is the division. In the NFC East or North, we'd be contenders. Going forward, the niners and Seahawks will play down (to the Rams).

These are the talking points, yes?

And, Bradford went down.

To me, the single biggest reason for the Rams record was that they played a lot of bad football.

Bad football. Bad blocking, bad tackling, bad execution. It would be, in my opinion, a mistake to simply assume the team will *develop* next year and eliminate the bad football.

There's no telling how this team will play next year. Absolutely no telling. Doesn't matter who they draft. Doesn't matter who they sign in FA.

We all wait, and hope.

But they played a lot of good football too and the Seahawks did both as well as did the 49r's ,so the proposition that we would have hit a better balance with Sam ,who for better or worse is part of our team and plays the position of most import isn't to be easily dismissed.
No one plays a perfect game ,would we have been better with Sam? I strongly believe we would so would we have been closer? yes and the numbers suggest markedly better

 

[LesBaker]

The single biggest reason for the Rams record is the division. In the NFC East or North, we'd be contenders. Going forward, the niners and Seahawks will play down (to the Rams).

These are the talking points, yes?

And, Bradford went down.

To me, the single biggest reason for the Rams record was that they played a lot of bad football.

Bad football. Bad blocking, bad tackling, bad execution. It would be, in my opinion, a mistake to simply assume the team will *develop* next year and eliminate the bad football.

There's no telling how this team will play next year. Absolutely no telling. Doesn't matter who they draft. Doesn't matter who they sign in FA.

We all wait, and hope.

They didn't play good football all year, that's true and is in part because of their opponents in some cases, not all but some.

I'm merely saying that if they are in a different division they aren't 7-9 and things don't seem as dire as they do.

 

[Thordaddy]

I'm not comparing Sam to Manning but without Manning how would the Broncos have fared in the NFC West?

Sam is clearly our best player take Lynch from Seattle ........do they beat us?

 

[BigRamFan]

I'm not comparing Sam to Manning but without Manning how would the Broncos have fared in the NFC West?

Sam is clearly our best player take Lynch from Seattle ........do they beat us?

I know that Manning is an "all time great" at the QB position. But, after watching him in the AFC Championship game I'd rather have Sam as our QB than Peyton even at the same cost. No, Sam doesn't YET possess Payton's ability to read defenses but his arm strength, accuracy and mobility are superior! Let's get this man an OL that will allow him time to set up and see the field, you know, more than 2.5 seconds and then see what he can do!

 

[tonyl711]

thor, call me stupid, but wtf does IOW stand for?

 

[tonyl711]

we didn't play good in any games this year? I thought the Colts and Saints games were pretty well played by the Rams, the Seattle game at home also even though we lost, we stunk it up at times but we did play some good football in a few games.