Stick a fork in 'em: 2012 St. Louis Rams

[stan]

You implied it by bringing it into the discussion.

The consistent upward trend that was talked about earlier in the thread was in reference to a season-to-season effect. '99 is a clear aberration in the history of the NFL (no other team has gone worst to Super Bowl champion in a single season). Even the Cowboys of the early 90's, aided by one of the most one-sided trades in NFL history, needed 3 seasons to get to the Super Bowl.

'99 is the exception to every successful turn around in NFL history.

No I didn't. A statement was made that I refuted with the OBVIOUS reply for a Rams fan of '99. I also said '03 could be considered the same given the issues addressed with the '02 season. '99 (16-3) happened and it PERFECTLY fits the "upward trend" desired from the year before (4-12).

Nittany was talking about starting the season at the bottom and trending up throughout the course of the year (see eight posts above). He's right, that rarely happens, and that's why (according to him) we need to curb our expectations. In 99 we came storming out of the gates and stayed up there. We started kinda strong this year, but still lost, and it's been ups and downs ever since.

So what does starting at the bottom mean? Losing how many games at the start of a season? Or is some other criteria used? To me wins is what matters and a trend uses the previous season as a baseline. I also contend the play of the '99 Rams trended upward (as well as the number of wins) because the lack of serious injuries allowed more playing time.

 

[-X-]

You implied it by bringing it into the discussion.

The consistent upward trend that was talked about earlier in the thread was in reference to a season-to-season effect. '99 is a clear aberration in the history of the NFL (no other team has gone worst to Super Bowl champion in a single season). Even the Cowboys of the early 90's, aided by one of the most one-sided trades in NFL history, needed 3 seasons to get to the Super Bowl.

'99 is the exception to every successful turn around in NFL history.

No I didn't. A statement was made that I refuted with the OBVIOUS reply for a Rams fan of '99. I also said '03 could be considered the same given the issues addressed with the '02 season. '99 (16-3) happened and it PERFECTLY fits the "upward trend" desired from the year before (4-12).

Nittany was talking about starting the season at the bottom and trending up throughout the course of the year (see eight posts above). He's right, that rarely happens, and that's why (according to him) we need to curb our expectations. In 99 we came storming out of the gates and stayed up there. We started kinda strong this year, but still lost, and it's been ups and downs ever since.

So what does starting at the bottom mean? Losing how many games at the start of a season? Or is some other criteria used? To me wins is what matters and a trend uses the previous season as a baseline. I also contend the play of the '99 Rams trended upward (as well as the number of wins) because the lack of serious injuries allowed more playing time.

Dude. I'm just going by what Nittany said (and meant). You're going by what you mean.
You both could be right for all I care.

 

[Ram Quixote]

You implied it by bringing it into the discussion.

The consistent upward trend that was talked about earlier in the thread was in reference to a season-to-season effect. '99 is a clear aberration in the history of the NFL (no other team has gone worst to Super Bowl champion in a single season). Even the Cowboys of the early 90's, aided by one of the most one-sided trades in NFL history, needed 3 seasons to get to the Super Bowl.

'99 is the exception to every successful turn around in NFL history.

No I didn't. A statement was made that I refuted with the OBVIOUS reply for a Rams fan of '99. I also said '03 could be considered the same given the issues addressed with the '02 season. '99 (16-3) happened and it PERFECTLY fits the "upward trend" desired from the year before (4-12).

You did it again. You can't refute a statement with an exception. The 99 Rams are a 1-in-46 chance. Going on 47.

I'm all for the quick turnaround. Right now, I'll settle for the gradual turnaround we're working on.

 

[stan]

You implied it by bringing it into the discussion.

The consistent upward trend that was talked about earlier in the thread was in reference to a season-to-season effect. '99 is a clear aberration in the history of the NFL (no other team has gone worst to Super Bowl champion in a single season). Even the Cowboys of the early 90's, aided by one of the most one-sided trades in NFL history, needed 3 seasons to get to the Super Bowl.

'99 is the exception to every successful turn around in NFL history.

No I didn't. A statement was made that I refuted with the OBVIOUS reply for a Rams fan of '99. I also said '03 could be considered the same given the issues addressed with the '02 season. '99 (16-3) happened and it PERFECTLY fits the "upward trend" desired from the year before (4-12).

You did it again. You can't refute a statement with an exception.

Oh yes I can. Especially when words like "never" are used:

However, it would be nice if the improvement could come in a nice smooth upward trajectory. Unfortunately that's never they way it is. There is an overall upward trend but it's full of peaks and valleys. This can make it a struggle to keep perspective.


'99 is a fact. '99 was essentially overall upward with no real peaks or valleys. An inconvenient fact for your argument but fact nonetheless.

 

[Ram Quixote]

You implied it by bringing it into the discussion.

The consistent upward trend that was talked about earlier in the thread was in reference to a season-to-season effect. '99 is a clear aberration in the history of the NFL (no other team has gone worst to Super Bowl champion in a single season). Even the Cowboys of the early 90's, aided by one of the most one-sided trades in NFL history, needed 3 seasons to get to the Super Bowl.

'99 is the exception to every successful turn around in NFL history.

No I didn't. A statement was made that I refuted with the OBVIOUS reply for a Rams fan of '99. I also said '03 could be considered the same given the issues addressed with the '02 season. '99 (16-3) happened and it PERFECTLY fits the "upward trend" desired from the year before (4-12).

You did it again. You can't refute a statement with an exception.

Oh yes I can. Especially when words like "never" are used:

However, it would be nice if the improvement could come in a nice smooth upward trajectory. Unfortunately that's never they way it is. There is an overall upward trend but it's full of peaks and valleys. This can make it a struggle to keep perspective.


'99 is a fact. '99 was essentially overall upward with no real peaks or valleys. An inconvenient fact for your argument but fact nonetheless.

I never said never. Still, what happened in 99 never happened before and very likely will never happen again. :hehe:

 

[stan]

You implied it by bringing it into the discussion.

The consistent upward trend that was talked about earlier in the thread was in reference to a season-to-season effect. '99 is a clear aberration in the history of the NFL (no other team has gone worst to Super Bowl champion in a single season). Even the Cowboys of the early 90's, aided by one of the most one-sided trades in NFL history, needed 3 seasons to get to the Super Bowl.

'99 is the exception to every successful turn around in NFL history.

No I didn't. A statement was made that I refuted with the OBVIOUS reply for a Rams fan of '99. I also said '03 could be considered the same given the issues addressed with the '02 season. '99 (16-3) happened and it PERFECTLY fits the "upward trend" desired from the year before (4-12).

You did it again. You can't refute a statement with an exception.

Oh yes I can. Especially when words like "never" are used:

However, it would be nice if the improvement could come in a nice smooth upward trajectory. Unfortunately that's never they way it is. There is an overall upward trend but it's full of peaks and valleys. This can make it a struggle to keep perspective.


'99 is a fact. '99 was essentially overall upward with no real peaks or valleys. An inconvenient fact for your argument but fact nonetheless.

I never said never. Still, what happened in 99 never happened before and very likely will never happen again. :hehe:

Yet you're arguing the point I made in response to a post that did say "never". :roll:

 

[Ram Quixote]

You implied it by bringing it into the discussion.

The consistent upward trend that was talked about earlier in the thread was in reference to a season-to-season effect. '99 is a clear aberration in the history of the NFL (no other team has gone worst to Super Bowl champion in a single season). Even the Cowboys of the early 90's, aided by one of the most one-sided trades in NFL history, needed 3 seasons to get to the Super Bowl.

'99 is the exception to every successful turn around in NFL history.

No I didn't. A statement was made that I refuted with the OBVIOUS reply for a Rams fan of '99. I also said '03 could be considered the same given the issues addressed with the '02 season. '99 (16-3) happened and it PERFECTLY fits the "upward trend" desired from the year before (4-12).

You did it again. You can't refute a statement with an exception.

Oh yes I can. Especially when words like "never" are used:

However, it would be nice if the improvement could come in a nice smooth upward trajectory. Unfortunately that's never they way it is. There is an overall upward trend but it's full of peaks and valleys. This can make it a struggle to keep perspective.


'99 is a fact. '99 was essentially overall upward with no real peaks or valleys. An inconvenient fact for your argument but fact nonetheless.

I never said never. Still, what happened in 99 never happened before and very likely will never happen again. :hehe:

Yet you're arguing the point I made in response to a post that did say "never". :roll:

That's because my point is that 99 doesn't belong in Nittany's discussion of "smooth upward trajectory."

 

[stan]

That's because my point is that 99 doesn't belong in Nittany's discussion of "smooth upward trajectory."

Again it's the use of the word "never" since the 2006 (8-8), 2007 (10-6), 2008 (12-4) Steelers prove otherwise. :sly:

 

[-X-]

Hey, here's an idea.

Let's not debate the word never anymore.

FFS.

 

[Ram Quixote]

That's because my point is that 99 doesn't belong in Nittany's discussion of "smooth upward trajectory."

Again it's the use of the word "never" since the 2006 (8-8), 2007 (10-6), 2008 (12-4) Steelers prove otherwise. :sly:

What are you talking about? The 2005 Steelers were SB champions. The 2008 Steelers were SB champions. Those Steelers weren't in a turnaround. They were already up, trying to get back. What does any of that have to do with the 99 Rams? Or a smooth upward trajectory?

 

[stan]

That's because my point is that 99 doesn't belong in Nittany's discussion of "smooth upward trajectory."

Again it's the use of the word "never" since the 2006 (8-8), 2007 (10-6), 2008 (12-4) Steelers prove otherwise. :sly:

What are you talking about? The 2005 Steelers were SB champions. The 2008 Steelers were SB champions. Those Steelers weren't in a turnaround. They were already up, trying to get back. What does any of that have to do with the 99 Rams? Or a smooth upward trajectory?

Ha ha then the 2007 (7-9), 2008 (8-8), 2009 (13-3) Saints. :sly:

 

[Ram Quixote]

That's because my point is that 99 doesn't belong in Nittany's discussion of "smooth upward trajectory."

Again it's the use of the word "never" since the 2006 (8-8), 2007 (10-6), 2008 (12-4) Steelers prove otherwise. :sly:

What are you talking about? The 2005 Steelers were SB champions. The 2008 Steelers were SB champions. Those Steelers weren't in a turnaround. They were already up, trying to get back. What does any of that have to do with the 99 Rams? Or a smooth upward trajectory?

Ha ha then the 2007 (7-9), 2008 (8-8), 2009 (13-3) Saints. :sly:

That is an example of a smooth upward trajectory. I'm glad you figured it out. Certainly not like the 99 Rams.

 

[stan]

That's because my point is that 99 doesn't belong in Nittany's discussion of "smooth upward trajectory."

Again it's the use of the word "never" since the 2006 (8-8), 2007 (10-6), 2008 (12-4) Steelers prove otherwise. :sly:

What are you talking about? The 2005 Steelers were SB champions. The 2008 Steelers were SB champions. Those Steelers weren't in a turnaround. They were already up, trying to get back. What does any of that have to do with the 99 Rams? Or a smooth upward trajectory?

Ha ha then the 2007 (7-9), 2008 (8-8), 2009 (13-3) Saints. :sly:

That is an example of a smooth upward trajectory. I'm glad you figured it out. Certainly not like the 99 Rams.

I've always used wins as the criteria.

 

[bluecoconuts]

That's incredibly short sighted.

 

[stan]

That's incredibly short sighted.

No it's not. Even you agreed with the Saints. Besides all you've ever done is argue against without ever specifying ANY criteria.

 

[bluecoconuts]

That's incredibly short sighted.

No it's not. Even you agreed with the Saints. Besides all you've ever done is argue against without ever specifying ANY criteria.

No I didn't, and no I haven't. I've made 1 other post in this thread before that one, and it was before the conversation turned this way.

Now if you want to know why it's short sighted, because you don't look at what happens. The Rams could go out and go 0-15 passing, amass 0 yards rushing, but the other team fumbles the ball in the endzone and gives the Rams a 7-0 win. If all you look at are W's and L's then that looks like a good game but it wasn't.

A team can play well in a loss, and bad in a win. In the end win's and losses are what matters when it comes to the playoffs, but you can't determine how well a team is playing by looking at those alone. Doesn't matter what sport you are playing a record doesn't always determine how good or bad a team is.

 

[stan]

That's incredibly short sighted.

No it's not. Even you agreed with the Saints. Besides all you've ever done is argue against without ever specifying ANY criteria.

No I didn't, and no I haven't. I've made 1 other post in this thread before that one, and it was before the conversation turned this way.

Now if you want to know why it's short sighted, because you don't look at what happens. The Rams could go out and go 0-15 passing, amass 0 yards rushing, but the other team fumbles the ball in the endzone and gives the Rams a 7-0 win. If all you look at are W's and L's then that looks like a good game but it wasn't.

A team can play well in a loss, and bad in a win. In the end win's and losses are what matters when it comes to the playoffs, but you can't determine how well a team is playing by looking at those alone. Doesn't matter what sport you are playing a record doesn't always determine how good or bad a team is.

True but the criteria over time if a team is playing well is eventually reflected in the win column over time. All the bad breaks, luck etc. are evened out over the course of a season. Parts of the team can be trending differently at the same time too. Therefore wins I contend is the criteria otherwise what would denote a meaningful upward trend?

 

[Thordaddy]

Still undefeated in the division

 

[-X-]

Still undefeated in the division

There ya go.