DthOn2Legs
Rookie
Correct. Not sure if any of those other teams have scored ten points or less in MOST of their games this season.
Are the Rams the best 2-3 football team right now?
- Thread starter Mojo Ram
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Boston Ram
Hall of Fame
Washington beat us, so it's hard for me to say we are better then they are. I also think Seattle is a little better but Lynch being out and that oline, they are vulnerable.
Big Willie
Starter
Sitting on the bench. But I use the same logic as in college football rankings....how can a team that lost a head to head contest be ranked higher than the one they lost to if they have the same record? Based on having the same record and the head to head matchup it is my opinion the Redskins are better now than the Rams. I believe, however, that if the Rams play to their potential they will end the season with a better record than the skins and prove that over the long haul they are a better team.
Because we were missing our best offensive player. We beat Arizona. Does that mean Washington > St. Louis > Arizona?
The Redskins either are or aren't better than the Rams. None of this if the Rams play more games, they might prove to be better.
Do you think the Redskins are a better football team?(i.e. you expect them to be the better team over the entirety of the season)
Big Willie
Starter
The NFL is all about injuries and the ability of teams to overcome personel losses. Personally, I think the Rams have more talent than the Redskins, Green Bay and Pittsburgh. What they don't have is proven impact players on offense like Rothlisburger and Rodgers. Both of these teams were missing impact players during at least a portion of the Rams game and found ways to win (Rothlisburger and Nelson). So, for me, until the Rams show they can find ways to win....they are what we thought they were...an underperforming team that should be better than teams like Washington, but aren't.Because we were missing our best offensive player. We beat Arizona. Does that mean Washington > St. Louis > Arizona?
The Redskins either are or aren't better than the Rams. None of this if the Rams play more games, they might prove to be better.
Do you think the Redskins are a better football team?(i.e. you expect them to be the better team over the entirety of the season)
Oh, that does not mean Washington is better than Arizona. It just means the Rams are inconsistent, and inconsistent is in some respect a form of mediocrity. At their best, the Rams are the best team in the NFC West. At their worst, they will lose to a Detroit or Tampa Bay.
I don't think we have more talent than GB and Pittsburgh (with Roethlisberger).
Pittsburgh didn't really find a way. We found a way to lose.
The ability of teams to overcome losses OVER A SEASON. Not over a single game. We'll see how the Rams finish but I have no issues saying right now that we're a better team than Washington.
The Rams are who they are. That won't change this year. If they're an under-performing team now, they'll be an under-performing team all year.
Big Willie
Starter
The Rams don't have a Rodgers or Rothlisburger, granted. But aside from those players, the Talent of the Rams is equal to or greater than that of Pittsburgh and Green Bay IMHO. We are not seeing them perform to the levels they are capable of IMO.
Potato, potatoe. I don't think it is written anywhere that the ability of a team to overcome has to be over a year. Next man up. Next man steps up over a play, series, game, season. That's what we needed from our cornerbacks with the loss of EJ. That's what we will need from our LBs with the loss of Tree. I think the Rams have the ability to show more consistency and that will happen if the OL improves, receivers catch the ball and the QB stops throwing interceptions. All are capable of doing that.
Why do you say that?
There are many example of teams getting it together and rolling the playoffs. Coming to mind the 2011 NY Giants.
During that season, at one point, lost 4 in a row.
Finished 9-7.
Won the Super Bowl.
The Giants were the exception, not the rule. And this is the Rams were talking about....
But, anything could happen, that is true.
The Giants were the exception, not the rule. And this is the Rams were talking about....
But, anything could happen, that is true.
The Ravens in 2012 at 10-6 had a similar hot finish thru the playoffs... And SB win.
And man did Ozzie make one BIG fat mistake and hand Flacco that contract.
Yikes that was a bad move and Mr. Newsome makes very, very few bad moves.
I don't think they had a choice.
Flacco is good.
He's not Brady, Rodgers, or P Manning good... But he can lead a team to victory in the big game. Obviously.
Ravens problems are deeper than J Facco.
True. But dont think anyone saw the Ravens and Flacco going beast mode. As I said it could happen. But honestly after the last 10 years, don't see it happening. But can't argue that it cant happen with the examples you gave.
Because that team didn't underachieve. 3 of those 4 losses (in the 4 game losing streak) came to teams with 13+ wins.
Point I'm making isn't that the Rams suck. The point I'm making is that solely looking at the Rams record at this point doesn't tell us how god they'll be. And solely looking at Wins and Losses won't necessarily tell us who the better team is. Sometimes teams inexplicably lose games. It's the NFL; it just happens.