The Dude Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Definitely. Bad teams like the Rams tend to elevate their game when playing elite competition. We'll have to get used to having a big mark on our backs for the rest of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 well a 28-0 loss to a team thats looking like the 3rd best team in the nfc west doesn't help their case To be fair, they played in Seattle, which we all know is a tough place to play. I also wouldn't place them there yet. The Cards and the 49ers still have a lot to prove. I do take some exception by automatically defining a team as 'bad' when you have only a couple of games to judge them by. An offense that has Marc Bulger and Steven Jackson is always going to be potentially dangerous. That being said, it doesn't excuse us from not scoring a couple of TDs when we had the opportunity to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 I think people tend to forget that they guys on "bad" teams are professional players too. These aren't a bunch of scrubs or young college guys. They are capable of playing football.. Any Given Sunday. Do you think that b/c the Pats nearly lost to the Bills and then turn around and get spanked by the Jets that they are all of a sudden a ****ty team? No, its because at any time, any team has a chance to win. Even the Lions at 0-16 last year came very close to winning several of those games. A play here, a play there and even they could have been 8-8. A win is a win. I don't care if it's ugly or if its close- as long as we win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Last season's performance is irrelevant to the discussion. It's a new season. Teams go from 5-11 to 11-5 all the time. I'm simply talking about performance from week 1 to week 2. Teams don't always look sharp on the season opener, or even early in the season. Yea, but the Rams kinda suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Definitely. Bad teams like the Rams tend to elevate their game when playing elite competition. We'll have to get used to having a big mark on our backs for the rest of the season. We're elite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Schlereth, your village called, they want their idiot back.There is a big difference between running the half back option and running it in that situation and that close to the goal line. Especially after the two previous runs. And in an obvious passing situation. Half back option passes work when teams are selling out for the run. The Rams would have been looking pass first on 3rd and goal from the 5. I wouldn't have had a problem with the call on first or second down but thought running it on 3rd was ill-advised. I haven't had as much of a problem with Zorn's general play calling this year except when they have gotten in the redzone where he seems to get the yips. I didn't think the reverse to Randle El against the Giants was such a bad call. I blame that entirely on Randle El's execution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedevilhimself Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 If we win 9-7 2-0 3-2 another 17 weeks we win it all ... and set some snazzy lowest scorring offense and defense records along the way . I think the Rams did play better than they did in week 1 thier D was more prepared and Spags was up against a team he knew . On offense they are still a work in progress but lets not think everyone else team is ticking over nicley and we are the only team that stinks . The Giants for one missed opportunity after oportunity in the Dallas game to come away with TDs insted came away with TDs. If Romo sits to pee wasn't playing for the G-men (and I have to say that second int was crazy bouncing off Wittens shoe) then the Giants would have paid for the failure to get the ball in the EZ . We need work no doubt but it really is any given sunday ... just before the Pats went on a 21 game undefeted stretch they were blown out 28-0 by the Bills - previous sucess or faliure does not predict future trends ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Definitely. Bad teams like the Rams tend to elevate their game when playing elite competition. We'll have to get used to having a big mark on our backs for the rest of the season. I hope this was said tongue-in-cheek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
202Chaz Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 I do not get the argument that the Skins beat a vastly inferior team. The Rams are getting better and better. In fact, I can say without hesitation that I would gladly trade their entire offense for the Skins. I think Spagnuolo will be good head coach. What NFL team are the Redskins superior to, the only difference between us the Rams, and Lions is our defense saves us from week to week when Jackson scored last week and they went up my heart dropped to the floor and it wasn't even halftime then. If you say where is my optimism Vinny Cerrato killed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 To be fair, they played in Seattle, which we all know is a tough place to play. I also wouldn't place them there yet. The Cards and the 49ers still have a lot to prove.I do take some exception by automatically defining a team as 'bad' when you have only a couple of games to judge them by. An offense that has Marc Bulger and Steven Jackson is always going to be potentially dangerous. That being said, it doesn't excuse us from not scoring a couple of TDs when we had the opportunity to. Fedex Field is also a tough place to play. They scored 7 points. The only difference was the Redskins ability to score. The Seahawks had 4 turnovers against the Rams and still put up 28. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lashondajones Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 let it go folks. The Rams are an NFL team. They have several players who have made the PRO BOWL including their quarterback. Bulger is still a pro bowl QB but without all the weapons and blocking he had. The difference between good teams and bad teams is very small in the NFL. Sometimes a new coach, sometimes 2 or 3 players, or a scheme. Sometimes its a lucky bounce or a bad call and sometimes its the weather. We won the game and the Rams aren't making the playoffs so lets move on. I haven't heard any Giants fans complaining that the Skins/Giants game came down to a onsides kick. They won. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morpheusmeyers Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 I do take some exception by automatically defining a team as 'bad' when you have only a couple of games to judge them by. An offense that has Marc Bulger and Steven Jackson is always going to be potentially dangerous.QUOTE] Greg Blache had similar comments last week before we played the Rams, calling Steven Jackson the 2nd best running back in the league and labeling M. Bulger a former pro bowl quarterback. Sillyness. The Rams are flat out bad. They were 2-14 last season. And for the most part they weren't even in games. They got blown out by 20+ 7 times and only got beat by less than 10 6 times. Here are the amounts they lost by, in order... 21, 4, 35, 28, 24, 17, 7, 21, 44, 19, 24, 4, 24, 3, 1, and 4. There is no indication they are any better this season. They are 0-2. They got beat in their opener 28 to zip. They are averaging 3.5 points per game. Regarding the comment "An offense that has Marc Bulger and Steven Jackson is always going to be potentially dangerous," the Rams were ranked 27th in offense last year (total offense, YPG). This year they are currently ranked 31st. Going by the stats they are worse. And Bulger is 32 and past his prime. We beat the Rams. Cool. I will gladly take a win against whomever. But we beat a bad team. A really bad one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Nope. Because it wasnt that the Rams played well, we just played really badly. The Rams scored 7 points, all because of one big run by Jackson. Thats bad even against a good defense. The defense allowed us to waltz up and down the field on them. Our failures were NOT forced by the Rams, instead we had a cripling penalty, fumble, dropped interception, called back fumble because of a dumb penalty, two dropped(not batted down) touchdown passes, and poor redzone play calling that only gave our QB 3 out of 16 opportunities. The only one of those you could say was forced was the Moss fumble. The rest were not because of the Rams steller play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.