How many more Wins?

With Bradford we were hesitant to judge his poor performances too harshly because his receivers were so bad. Reverse that now. Bailey’s invisibility probably has more to do with Davis than anything else. There was one play where Bailey was wide open over the middle and Davis missed him badly.

wv wrote:

One thing i know is they will
look promising in their losses
and goofy in their wins.
w
v

You know, I disagree with you about this being an inconsistent team. I think they are completely consistent.

They show flashes of quality.

Overall, they suck.

And they collapse under pressure.

Been doing that steadily all year.

Apart from dumping the ball off short, Davis can do one thing. He can throw high balls to really tall receivers. Quick. Cook. Britt.

So next year we bring back Davis but get taller receivers. Let’s check the college ranks for basketball centers not good enough for the NBA. If Davis had 7 foot tall receivers–he’d look like Peyton Manning.

Just kidding, RFL. I see the same thing. It’s bad when you throw too high for even tall receivers like Britt.

Zooey wrote:

I think we all need to keep sage burning at our Bradford shrines because – for sure – if it isn’t Bradford, it’s another long stretch without a quality QB. There won’t be a starter for next year in the draft, and possibly no future starter at all by preliminary reports. If Bradford can’t play well, we could be in for a significant drought at QB. Years.

Why years?

Interesting, isn’t it? This whole qb thing. For years and years the Rams had no qb–just Ferragamo, who had limitations. Then Everett, then the drought again. And then, wham, in a period of 3 years, had Green (who didn’t play but was still quality), Warner, and Bulger.

Zooey wrote:

zn wrote:

Zooey wrote:
I think we all need to keep sage burning at our Bradford shrines because – for sure – if it isn’t Bradford, it’s another long stretch without a quality QB. There won’t be a starter for next year in the draft, and possibly no future starter at all by preliminary reports. If Bradford can’t play well, we could be in for a significant drought at QB. Years.

Why years?

Interesting, isn’t it? This whole qb thing. For years and years the Rams had no qb–just Ferragamo, who had limitations. Then Everett, then the drought again. And then, wham, in a period of 3 years, had Green (who didn’t play but was still quality), Warner, and Bulger.

I think “years” because there aren’t many Mannings or Lucks ever. And the other guys – including Rodgers, Brees, and so on – took years.

There is always the possibility of a Trent Green. But in addition to Green, I can think only of Chris Miller and John Hadl who came from somewhere else and were worth having. Don’t make me list the names of QBs who came from somewhere else who didn’t work out. I can do that, and it won’t be pretty.

But they don’t have to be Manning, Brees, & company.

They can be Wilson, Flacco, or Foles.

Wilson is a lower draft pick who was starting as a rookie and was a perfect complement to a running/defense team.

Foles was a system fit who complemented a running team.

Flacco went straight to a winning team and was in the playoffs virtually every year because of the team.

Then there’s Manning, the FA Denver signed, or Palmer, the veteran Arz acquired.

And we don;t know how much Bradford has left in him. You can’t count on it, but if you keep him, he adds to the mix.

You can strike gold with a Wilson AND keep Bradford.

Bradford btw always was a “takes years” type…that’s one of the reasons I argued against drafting him in 2010. He was a frontrunner on a loaded college spread team and his adjustments were going to take time. EVERYTHING was going to be different for him, from the start.

Zooey wrote:

Right, they don’t need an elite QB, but even most of the elite QBs took years. That’s my point. Okay, so, they might draft a Flacco or Wilson who is adequate or better from game one. It’s possible. I never said it was impossible.

I said we COULD be in for a QB drought that lasts years. Unfortunately, statistically, that is more likely than drafting Flacco.

But, hey, maybe it’s Gilbert.

Granting that this is all just opinions from observation and not divinely inspired clairvoyance….

in the recent world?

QBs take years if they go to teams that are building around the qb. So they build while he learns. The Mannning at Indy model.

QBs don’t take years if you give them the initially much more limited task of managing an already built team. Seattle model with Wilson.

The Flacco Ravens, for example, were in the playoffs right away. Flacco was drafted in 2008, and they were in the playoffs for 5 straight years, from 2008-2012. And it wasn’t cause of Flacco.

That is, ASSUMING the qb in question is at least good, “development” is not a product of the qb’s presumably inherent learning curve. It’s a product of the quality of team he lands on.

You not only DON’T need an elite qb, the WORST model is building a team around a young elite qb. That kind of team, far more often than not, crashes and burns in the post-season. That is, building your wins around the passing skills of an elite qb will always make you competitive IN the regular season but unless you have the defense or a very well-rounded, complete offense, then, the post-season just crushes those teams. Add up the superbowl wins for Manning, Fouts, Marino, Elway before Davis (after Davis being different), and so on.

So if this holds…and it seems to be the wave of the present…if the Rams have the pieces on offense and a growing defense, they can add a qb and be there sooner not later.

zn wrote:

Zooey wrote:
Right, they don’t need an elite QB, but even most of the elite QBs took years. That’s my point. Okay, so, they might draft a Flacco or Wilson who is adequate or better from game one. It’s possible. I never said it was impossible.

I said we COULD be in for a QB drought that lasts years. Unfortunately, statistically, that is more likely than drafting Flacco.

But, hey, maybe it’s Gilbert.

Granting that this is all just opinions from observation and not divinely inspired clairvoyance….

in the recent world?

QBs take years if they go to teams that are building around the qb. So they build while he learns. The Mannning at Indy model.

QBs don’t take years if you give them the initially much more limited task of managing an already built team. Seattle model with Wilson.

The Flacco Ravens, for example, were in the playoffs right away. Flacco was drafted in 2008, and they were in the playoffs for 5 straight years, from 2008-2012. And it wasn’t cause of Flacco.

That is, ASSUMING the qb in question is at least good, “development” is not a product of the qb’s presumably inherent learning curve. It’s a product of the quality of team he lands on.

You not only DON’T need an elite qb, the WORST model is building a team around a young elite qb. That kind of team, far more often than not, crashes and burns in the post-season. That is, building your wins around the passing skills of an elite qb will always make you competitive IN the regular season but unless you have the defense or a very well-rounded, complete offense, then, the post-season just crushes those teams. Add up the superbowl wins for Manning, Fouts, Marino, Elway before Davis (after Davis being different), and so on.

So if this holds…and it seems to be the wave of the present…if the Rams have the pieces on offense and a growing defense, they can add a qb and be there sooner not later.

So…you’re predicting the Rams go to the Super Bowl next year?

Okay. Noted.

(from another thread)

HighPlainsDrifter wrote:

http://theramshuddle.com/topic/anyone-here-ever-hurt-their-knee/#post-11656

I think that having to draft a quarterback will set the team’s building efforts back at least a couple of years. I don’t relish the thought of a rookie quarterback. But I know that depending on Bradford’s twice injured knee is an enormous gamble. I’d say that the Rams are between a rock and a hard place with their quarterback position.

Well I think it’s pretty clear they will acquire a qb, or even 2.

But in terms of being set back years.

That depends…because as I said earlier in this thread, I think that if you look at qbs since Flacco, you can see that the league has a new model for developing them.

Some teams still take a young guy and build around him. Luck, for example.

And some teams add a young guy to a more established, pretty much built squad. Flacco, Wilson, Dalton.

If you do #2 it doesn’t take as long for the team to win. The qb can grow in an environment where it’s easier to win, and you can limit what he does without having to depend on him so much. The growing pains are less sharp. Look at the 2004 Steelers. They go 15-1 with Roethlisberger in 2004, and it wasn;t because of HIM.

If as I think they will be next year the Rams are a far more established team than they are even right now…you can add a good young qb and not have to spend “years building around him.”

Seattle started Wilson as a rookie in 2012. They went 11-5. Not because of Wilson, but that’s precisely the point.

Baltimore started Flacco as a rookie in 2008. They went 11-5. They were in the playoffs for 5 straight seasons starting in 2008. Not because of Flacco, but again, that’s precisely the point.

Bengals added Dalton in 2011. They went 9-7 and then 10-6 in 2012. And I don’t even like Dalton that much. But he could qb for that team, cause it was already built.

Kaepernick, same thing.

So if events fall out so they have to start a rookie, the new qb development model can have you winning in his rookie year.

What do all those teams have in common?

They all already had the following:

* a running game
* a top defense

InvaderRam wrote:

i see them going at least 3-4 the rest of the way.

shoot. maybe even hill is named the starter again, and the rams go 4-3.

Yeah I think they have 3 or 4 wins in them. Depends on Hill.

One more than most thought this morning.

wv wrote:

At 3 and 6, in last place
there are 7 games left.

With an error-prone-QB,
and no No.1 WR, and a non-gelled
reshuffled OLine, and a Defense
that specializes in bonehead-mistakes,
how many wins do you see?

I’d be surprised if they beat
Denver or the Seahawks in Seattle.

They are such a weird team, i could
see them beating SD and Arizona and
losing to Oakland and Wash.

They could do anything. Lose
them all, win them all — they
are a spectacle.

One thing i know is they will
look promising in their losses
and goofy in their wins.

————————
Denver
At SD
Oakland
At Wash
Ariz
NYG
At Seattle

http://www.nfl.com/teams/profile?team=STL

w
v

So
Oakland
At Wash
Ariz
NYG

We win those and get to 8-8. In this division without the QB, WR, DE, LT that’s quite the accomplishment. The inconsistency is still very bothersome and Fisher is not that bad of a coach and Snead is a just ok GM imo but they are competent..in the NFC south they might be in first despite it all.