Login

~~JaguarsWoman~~ · 11-16-2014, 08:54 PM

Quote:I still stand by one of my previous posts, Rams are a better team than so many people realize. They have had so many injuries yet still show up.

There is a big difference between "better than people realize" and "a very good team." The Rams are still the worst team in their division.

What happened in St. Louis today was an example of the "any given Sunday" rule. Keep in mind the Rams could not score a touchdown from the red zone. Their one touchdown was 63 yards. It was not like the Packers/Eagles blowout.

Achilles · 11-16-2014, 08:59 PM

Quote:There is a big difference between "better than people realize" and "a very good team." The Rams are still the worst team in their division.

What happened in St. Louis today was an example of the "any given Sunday" rule. Keep in mind the Rams could not score a touchdown from the red zone. Their one touchdown was 63 yards. It was not like the Packers/Eagles blowout.

they have an elite defense so the offense not being able to score like the packers or say........ the broncos... didnt matter.

they are a good team and if they had a legit qb they would be nasty.

edit: sorry that one of your 3873 teams lost this week. i know its hard to handle when you have so much invested....

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

~~JaguarsWoman~~ · 11-16-2014, 09:08 PM

But my other favorite team that played won in blowout fashion.

Saying the Rams would be nasty if they had a legit quarterback implies they have no other weaknesses. I am sure the Rams would be much better with an upgrade at the position, but they need more than that to become playoff contenders.

Achilles · 11-16-2014, 09:12 PM

Quote:But my other favorite team that played won in blowout fashion.

Saying the Rams would be nasty if they had a legit quarterback implies they have no other weaknesses. I am sure the Rams would be much better with an upgrade at the position, but they need more than that to become playoff contenders.

doubt it and i was actually just making fun of you for being a fan of multiple teams. its a joke and takes away any credibility you have as a fan.

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

~~JaguarsWoman~~ · 11-16-2014, 09:50 PM

Quote:Doubt it and I was actually just making fun of you for being a fan of multiple teams. It's a joke and takes away any credibility you have as a fan.

What makes you think it is bad for me to like more than one team? There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

There is something very wrong with picking on me just because I disagree with you on something.

Achilles · 11-16-2014, 09:53 PM

Quote:What makes you think it is bad for me to like more than one team? There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

There is something very wrong with picking on me just because I disagree with you on something.

ok

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

NacD · 11-17-2014, 06:47 AM

SeaSea · 11-17-2014, 07:04 AM

Rams really surprised me yesterday. I was thinking they can only win against divisional rivals. Seriously, if they play 16 games against NFC West rivals every year, they would probably win 11 or 12 of them. If they would play 16 non-divisional games, they would probably win only 4 or 5.

Quote:There is a big difference between "better than people realize" and "a very good team." The Rams are still the worst team in their division.

What happened in St. Louis today was an example of the "any given Sunday" rule. Keep in mind the Rams could not score a touchdown from the red zone. Their one touchdown was 63 yards. It was not like the Packers/Eagles blowout.

And they would win NFC South. Other than that, they wouldn't be (alone) in last place in any other division than AFC North (I think records of their teams are a bit inflated this year, because they play against AFC South and NFC South) right now. Not just based on their record, I think they would have 3rd best roster (mainly because of their defense) in other divisions. W/L records doesn't show that, because we and 49ers are worse than last year (and Cardinals are better than anyone expects them to be), but I still believe NFC West is the best (or most competitive) division in the NFL.

~~JaguarsWoman~~ · 11-17-2014, 01:56 PM

Quote:Rams really surprised me yesterday. I was thinking they can only win against divisional rivals. Seriously, if they play 16 games against NFC West rivals every year, they would probably win 11 or 12 of them. If they would play 16 non-divisional games, they would probably win only 4 or 5.

And they would win NFC South. Other than that, they wouldn't be (alone) in last place in any other division than AFC North (I think records of their teams are a bit inflated this year, because they play against AFC South and NFC South) right now. Not just based on their record, I think they would have 3rd best roster (mainly because of their defense) in other divisions. W/L records doesn't show that, because we and 49ers are worse than last year (and Cardinals are better than anyone expects them to be), but I still believe NFC West is the best (or most competitive) division in the NFL.

I think everybody was surprised what the Rams did yesterday. Maybe Jeff Fisher's history with Peyton Manning had something to do with it. But as a Broncos fan I have to think injuries were a major reason as well.

"If they were in the NFC South" is a losers comment. If you have to be in the worst division to win a lot of games, you suck. I would not be surprised if a team in that lousy division does what the Seahawks did a few years ago: clinch a home playoff game with a losing record. But you bring up a good point about the AFC North teams having weak schedules.