If football is really won at the LOS

[Memphis Ram]

Except both the DL and defense lived up to the hype...except unrealistic expectations that they would break the sack record. Our defense finished top 5 in PPG Allowed and #7 in Points Per Drive Allowed. And you're not about to tell me that the Rams defensive success last year was not due to the DL.

Sorry, but I can't let that 3 game stretch vs. a horrible Raiders, Redskins, and Cardinals offense (sans Palmer) which greatly skews those numbers (which I'm not sure are correct) change my mind here.

 

[jrry32]

Sorry, but I can't let that 3 game stretch vs. a horrible Raiders, Redskins, and Cardinals offense (sans Palmer) which greatly skews those numbers (which I'm not sure are correct) change my mind here.

They're correct.
https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/opponent-offensive-points-per-game

You forgot to include the Broncos, 49ers, and the second Seahawks game in the games that "skewed" the numbers.

 

[Memphis Ram]

They're correct.
https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/opponent-offensive-points-per-game

You forgot to include the Broncos, 49ers, and the second Seahawks game in the games that "skewed" the numbers.

Not familiar with the site.

Though I don't recall the Seahawks playoff circumstances, I understand that this team matches up pretty well with Seattle.

But, sorry, I won't fool myself into believing that the Rams hold Denver to 7 points if 2 of Manning's top 3 targets don't leave the game due to injury coupled with the other injuries they had entering the game. And I'm surprised someone here is impressed by those 49ers games with their 25th ranked offense and a QB whom most here on this board don't seem to believe is any good.

 

[jrry32]

Not familiar with the site.

Though I don't recall the Seahawks playoff circumstances, I understand that this team matches up pretty well with Seattle.

But, sorry, I won't fool myself into believing that the Rams hold Denver to 7 points if 2 of Manning's top 3 targets don't leave the game due to injury coupled with the other injuries they had entering the game.

You can invent all the scenarios you want where the Rams wouldn't have shut Denver down. The fact is that they held them to 7 points. And Emannuel Sanders didn't "leave" the game injured. The Rams defense knocked him out of the game.

The site shows the number of points each team's DEFENSE allowed. Which means it removes opposing teams' defensive TDs and special teams TDs (as well as safeties).

And I'm surprised someone here is impressed by those 49ers games with their 25th ranked offense and a QB whom most here on this board don't seem to believe is any good.

Yea, the darn Rams and their unimpressive defense. Here are the points they gave up in each game:
Game 1 (Minnesota): 27 points
Game 2 (Tampa Bay): 17 points
Game 3 (Dallas): 27 points
Game 4 (Philadelphia): 20 points
Game 5 (San Francisco): 24 points
Game 6 (Seattle): 26 points
Game 7 (Kansas City): 27 points
Game 8 (San Francisco): 10 points
Game 9 (Arizona): 17 points
Game 10 (Denver): 7 points
Game 11 (San Diego): 20 points
Game 12 (Oakland): 0 points
Game 13 (Washington): 0 points
Game 14 (Arizona): 12 points
Game 15 (NYG): 37 points
Game 16 (Seattle): 13 points

What's obvious is that the defense struggled over the first 7 games. We already knew this. What's equally obvious is that they dominated after that aside from the Giants game.

To save you the math, our defense allowed 12.9 PPG over the final 9 games. But please...feed me more bullshit about how back to back shutouts (which is UNHEARD OF in the NFL) skewed the numbers.

You're not going to convince me that our DL was overrated or underachieved last year. Our defense was top 5 in PPG Allowed and #7 in points per drive allowed. That performance speaks for itself.

And before you make any more excuses or downplay our defensive performance, I'll point out that they were in Year 1 under Williams learning a very complex defense. So you can make excuses for why the impressive games don't count and I can make excuses for why the bad games (aside from NYG) do not count.

The numbers speak for themselves.

But you do you, Memphis. Personally, I don't enjoy talking trash about my team and minimizing their impressive performances.

 

[Memphis Ram]

@jrry32

Oh please. Stop the nonsense. I'm not talking trash about my team. I root for them just as hard as anyone else, but I simply choose not to leave my Rams blinders on when I look at them.

And sorry, but I don't discount the first 7 games just because you choose to do so. Why? Last I checked, those games count, too. And I take note of the competition and their circumstances.

Using yor link, those last 9 games:

49ers 25th ranked
Cardinals 24th ranked
Broncos 4th ranked
Chargers 17th ranked
Raiders 31st ranked (rookie QB)
Redskins 26th ranked (Colt McCoy? C'mon)
Cardinals 24th ranked (Stanton. Lindley show?)
Giants 13th ranked
Seahawks 9th ranked

They only played 3 offenses ranked in the top half of the league in scoring. The Giants destroyed them at home. They matched up well vs. the Seahawks who may or may not have already had their playoff situation in hand (not sure). And they defeated an injury plagued Broncos team.

Sure, Manning led Sanders too far and McCleod knocked him out of the game with his hit. Great for the Rams. Never want to see anyone get hurt, but I was thrilled that he was out of the game. Why? Because even though another top target, Julius Thomas, lasted only a couple of series the Rams still had no answer for the guy. Minus Thomas (who missed some time during the game as well) and already down other players pre-game, they were running 2nd and 3rd string RBs, TEs, and WRs out there who weren't on the same page with Manning.

I loved that MY Rams took advantage of that situation. But, I'm not going to stick my chest out proudly as if they did it to that team with all or even most of their weapons available.

 

[shaunpinney]

This so much. Quinn and Donald can be dominant. Chris Long is overrated IMO. He disappears for games at a time and rarely comes up with a timely sack to change the course of a game. Brockers is good, but not amazing. He can still ascend, but I think he's close to what he's gonna be. I actually like a healthy William Hayes over Chris Long. Long is a good player, he's just paid like a great one unfortunately.

I'd say that Long is much better on our line than he gets credit for, by some, he keeps o-lines more honest, they can't focus too much on Quinn, because Long will get them. IMO the whole unit seems to work better when he's on the field, he is that unit's leader.

I also like Hayes, and I'm hoping Fairley lives up to his potential with us, we could have an elite D-line including the rotational guys, it's a good place to be - lets not knock a good unit guys

In the words of the Mighty Quinn himself when asked if he and Long can be the best tandem of ends in football, Quinn said: "I believe we can be in that argument. I like to call myself 'Black Lightning' and him the 'White Thunder,' aka 'The Thunder Storm.' "

 

[shaunpinney]

"...feed me more bullcrap about how back to back shutouts (which is UNHEARD OF in the NFL)...

I love back to back shutout bullcrap, more of the same this year please

People also forget that the Raider had beaten the Chiefs (7-4) the week before and the 49ers (7-6) the week after we humiliated them, so they weren't just whipping boys, we just flat out outcoached and outplayed them, why can't we just be a little bit proud and smug that we outscored 2 teams 76-0 - I know if it would have been the Seahawks or Pats they'd be still talking about it now!

 

[Corbin]

This so much. Quinn and Donald can be dominant. Chris Long is overrated IMO. He disappears for games at a time and rarely comes up with a timely sack to change the course of a game. Brockers is good, but not amazing. He can still ascend, but I think he's close to what he's gonna be. I actually like a healthy William Hayes over Chris Long. Long is a good player, he's just paid like a great one unfortunately.

 

[FrankenRam]

This so much. Quinn and Donald can be dominant. Chris Long is overrated IMO. He disappears for games at a time and rarely comes up with a timely sack to change the course of a game. Brockers is good, but not amazing. He can still ascend, but I think he's close to what he's gonna be. I actually like a healthy William Hayes over Chris Long. Long is a good player, he's just paid like a great one unfortunately.

And when Long was out a good portion of last year, and Hayes was getting a large part of the playing time Long would have if not injured, what did you think of that position's output then.(??)

 

[LACHAMP46]

Brockers is good, but not amazing.

I can see where you're coming from....I too want a lil more...Hell, I've seen dominant Rams defenses...The bend but don't break style is hard to appreciate...I like 3 and outs...I like QB sacks...I like players getting knocked out of games..I really like dominating defensive teams that beat playoff bound/offensive powerhouses. I don't like hiccups, or glitches, or anything that may seem that a great performance was a fluke. Sorry, I don't. Great defensive teams don't let what the Giants did, happen...And the whole season does matter. All the games matter...The early ones, and esp. the late ones. So I get you...No love loss..Everyone should get you...
Now, to your point about Brockers...I think this teams run defense relies on a dominant Brockers to push the middle of the defense. To clog the lanes...To be really successful. It's why I really appreciated the 2nd year Langford..and why I believe Brockers allows Donald, JL55, and Ogletree/Ayers to be MORE effective in the Williams scheme...I guess you'd like more sacks/tackles...I just want more disruption...and more stamina...Stay on the field and he'll become great....I've never seen so much substitution on the D-Line...And the funny thing, the O-Line never leaves the field...So, Brockers is very good at what he does, when he's on the field...He'd be amazing if he could stay out there longer...more plays...
I think the Snisher draft a DE, CB, and maybe a DT if Fairley isn't the man we expect him to be next year....

 

[jrry32]

@jrry32

Oh please. Stop the nonsense. I'm not talking trash about my team. I root for them just as hard as anyone else, but I simply choose not to leave my Rams blinders on when I look at them.

And sorry, but I don't discount the first 7 games just because you choose to do so. Why? Last I checked, those games count, too. And I take note of the competition and their circumstances.

This is rich. I gave you the numbers for the entire season and said NOTHING about the first 7 games. I didn't mention those games until you opted to discount all the Rams' impressive performances.

And you clearly missed the point I was making when I mentioned them. The point is that you can discount the Rams great performances with justifications, I can discount their poor performances the same way. It means nothing. Take the entire year at face value and they still ended up top 5.

Using yor link, those last 9 games:

49ers 25th ranked
Cardinals 24th ranked
Broncos 4th ranked
Chargers 17th ranked
Raiders 31st ranked (rookie QB)
Redskins 26th ranked (Colt McCoy? C'mon)
Cardinals 24th ranked (Stanton. Lindley show?)
Giants 13th ranked
Seahawks 9th ranked

They only played 3 offenses ranked in the top half of the league in scoring. The Giants destroyed them at home. They matched up well vs. the Seahawks who may or may not have already had their playoff situation in hand (not sure). And they defeated an injury plagued Broncos team.

I just averaged it all out. Over that 9 game stretch, the average ranking for scoring offenses was 19.2. That means we played on average a slightly below average scoring offense.

We held those offenses to an average of 12.9 PPG. For reference, Seattle led the NFL with 15.4 DPPG Allowed over the entire season.

Those numbers, again, speak for themselves.

As for those "injury plagued" Broncos, they put up 39 points the next week against Miami. Obviously weren't so injury plagued against other teams.

I'm glad we "match-up well" against the Seahawks...I think you can use that justification for just about any game where our defense played well. Can I claim we just didn't match-up well against the Giants to excuse poor defensive performances?

 

[ramfan46]

And when Long was out a good portion of last year, and Hayes was getting a large part of the playing time Long would have if not injured, what did you think of that position's output then.(??)

That's why I said a healthy Will Hayes. He was banged up from the beginning of last year. I hope Long goes out and holds the line of scrimmage in the run game consistently and nabs 10-13 sacks. Hopefully the weight he lost will make him a little more explosive. I also hope he cuts the offsides part out of his game.

 

[Memphis Ram]

This is rich. I gave you the numbers for the entire season and said NOTHING about the first 7 games. I didn't mention those games until you opted to discount all the Rams' impressive performances.

And you clearly missed the point I was making when I mentioned them. The point is that you can discount the Rams great performances with justifications, I can discount their poor performances the same way. It means nothing. Take the entire year at face value and they still ended up top 5.

OK. You said NOTHING about the first 7 games AND THEN you didn't mention the first 7 games until .... That's rich. I didn't specifically mention them at all until you did.

That said, I understand the point you are trying to make now. But, you can't blame me for not understanding that point via your earlier post. Just say what you mean like you did here.

And on that point, I disagree. I look at and consider circumstances in each game. I don't get too high if those circumstance heavily favor the Rams. And I don't believe that I get too low if they do not. I use to focus solely on numbers like you apparently do, but I've been enlightened by some other Rams fans.

Example: While I originally disagreed, later it bothered and bothers me that the Cardinals with nothing at QB can rush for over 140 yards with backup RBs and run the clock. Sure the defense only allowed 12 points. But, as putrid as those QBs were, that should have been one of the shutouts if the defense was so great.

Back to Denver. The 39 points were scored at home with Sanders and Thomas playing throughout and the teams discovery of C.J. Anderson as it's starter. Not at the end of a 3 game road trip in St. Louis.

And use the match up justification with the Giants all you want. It doesn't mean that I'll agree.

 

[jrry32]

And on that point, I disagree. I look at and consider circumstances in each game. I don't get too high if those circumstance heavily favor the Rams. And I don't believe that I get too low if they do not. I use to focus solely on numbers like you apparently do, but I've been enlightened by some other Rams fans.

The circumstances go both ways.

Example: While I originally disagreed, later it bothered and bothers me that the Cardinals with nothing at QB can rush for over 140 yards with backup RBs and run the clock. Sure the defense only allowed 12 points. But, as putrid as those QBs were, that should have been one of the shutouts if the defense was so great.

That should have been a shutout? The Cardinals were held to less than 12 points by only one team last year...Seattle in both games. They weren't shutout ONE TIME in 2014.

Arizona played three games FULLY with Lindley after the Rams game. They were held to 6 points by Seattle but scored 17 against San Francisco and 16 against Carolina. Against the Rams, Lindley only played 1.5 quarters and the team scored only 3 of the 12 points while he was in.

How is it realistic for you to say that only a shutout is acceptable?

Back to Denver. The 39 points were scored at home with Sanders and Thomas playing throughout and the teams discovery of C.J. Anderson as it's starter. Not at the end of a 3 game road trip in St. Louis.

That's false. Julius Thomas didn't play a snap against Miami and C.J. Anderson was the starter (and the only HB to get carries) against the Rams.

Sanders is the only difference...and he played against the Rams. He was knocked out of the game on a great defensive play by McLeod.

It's insane to me that you're discounting the Rams defense shutting down one of the best offenses in football because Rodney McLeod made a great play that knocked Denver's #2 WR from the game.

And use the match up justification with the Giants all you want. It doesn't mean that I'll agree.

It's just as weak using it for the Seattle game.

 

[-X-]

Get a room.
The sexual tension in this thread is palpable.

 

[Memphis Ram]

@jrry32

- Of course circumstances go both ways. Re-read what you quoted.

- I never said that Lindley played the whole game and I believe both Stanton and he stinks. And I also didn't say that only a shutout vs. the Cardinals was acceptable in of itself. Note the if they were so great part of of the sentence.

- The Thomas I was referring to in my last post at the end of the Broncos 3 game road trip was Demaryius who also hurt his ankle during the game. He didn't leave the game for good, but he didn't look the same afterwards when he came back in to me. And I was thrilled. So I'm not discounting the Rams performance based upon the take you've provided.

- And I don't see how saying that the Rams match up well vs. Seattle is weak. I believe that they do. Even with the caveat of them not being able to stop them late in game one, hence the 4th down trick play.

In the end, this appears that this is slowing becoming like our Tavon Austin and Lamarcus Joyner debates of awhile back. I'm not going to be able to convince you of my opinion and vice versa. So you believe what you want to believe and I'll do the same.

 

[jrry32]

@jrry32

- Of course circumstances go both ways. Re-read what you quoted.

- I never said that Lindley played the whole game and I believe both Stanton and he stinks. And I also didn't say that only a shutout vs. the Cardinals was acceptable in of itself. Note the if they were so great part of of the sentence.

Seattle couldn't shut them out either. Does that mean their defense wasn't/isn't great?

- The Thomas I was referring to in my last post at the end of the Broncos 3 game road trip was Demaryius who also hurt his ankle during the game. He didn't leave the game for good, but he didn't look the same afterwards when he came back in to me. And I was thrilled. So I'm not discounting the Rams performance based upon the take you've provided.

Julius Thomas is the Thomas that hurt his ankle and he didn't return.

- And I don't see how saying that the Rams match up well vs. Seattle is weak. I believe that they do. Even with the caveat of them not being able to stop them late in game one, hence the 4th down trick play.

Giants match-up well to the Rams then.

 

[jrry32]

Get a room.
The sexual tension in this thread is palpable.

Watch yourself or else I'll hand out spankings.

 

[-X-]

Watch yourself or else I'll hand out spankings.

 

[FrankenRam]

That's why I said a healthy Will Hayes. He was banged up from the beginning of last year. I hope Long goes out and holds the line of scrimmage in the run game consistently and nabs 10-13 sacks. Hopefully the weight he lost will make him a little more explosive. I also hope he cuts the offsides part out of his game.

You say Long is overrated, but you're way overrating WH, IMO. Hayes is excellent in the role he plays on the Rams, and I'm glad they have him. But he's exactly that.....a role player.