Laurinaitis says maturing Rams are winning games they’re supposed to win

Recent Forum Topics Forums The Rams Huddle Laurinaitis says maturing Rams are winning games they’re supposed to win

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #33211
    zn
    Moderator

    Laurinaitis says maturing Rams are winning games they’re supposed to win

    Mike Florio

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/10/29/laurinaitis-says-maturing-rams-are-winning-games-theyre-supposed-to-win/

    Last year, following an upset win against the 49ers, linebacker James Laurinaitis explained on PFT Live that the Rams have a habit of putting in extra work and focus when playing against a tough division rival but not having that same focus against less accomplished foes. This year, Laurinaitis explained on PFT Live on NBC Sports Radio that the Rams are more likely to not play down to the level of the competition.

    He chalked up the difference to the fact that the team is older and more mature, and that the Rams have learned the importance of avoiding a win-one-lose-one approach.

    They won on Sunday a game that past Rams teams may have found a way to lose, against the overmatched Browns. The challenge continues this Sunday, against a 49ers team that isn’t nearly as good as it’s been in past years.

    Aiding the effort is rookie running back Todd Gurley, whom Laurinaitis praised for already having the mindset of a veteran. It adds up to a team that is in contention for a playoff spot, and that can climb to 4-3 through seven games.

    #33212
    zn
    Moderator

    You know I really think you can put numbers to this.

    Games Rams were supposed to win.

    First, to look at this right, the way I see it, there really isn’t a solid Rams “contender” across the last 3 years. Consider this: how many times, in the last 48 games, have they had the following 3 things: (1) a starting qb, (2) a relatively healthy OL (ie. not that many injuries) and/or a relatively healthy VETERAN OL, and (3) a legit running threat (ie. not Richardson). Across the 48 games from 2012-14, it has been 11 times. Other than that, they really haven’t had a full offense that entire time. A team can handle injuries and win (Kendricks, Ogletree, Gaines, Long, Saffold). But when injuries compromise the effectiveness of an entire key unit (like the OL) it causes trouble.

    Now as games they shoulda won. How many actually is that?

    In 2012, they lost 2 of 6 of games that where the Rams should have won, which basically means teams which losing records (though 7-9 and 8-8 teams on the road don’t count as that for me…that’s much more evenly matched.) They beat Arizona twice (they were 5-11 that year), Buffalo, and Tampa. Those were the “you should be favored” games. They lost to Detroit and the Jets. The Miami game was on the road and they were 7-9 that year which does not make them easily beatable.

    In 2013, they lost 2 of 6 such games. They beat an 8-8 Chicago at home, plus Jacksonville, Houston, and Tampa. They lost 2: Atlanta (on the road) and Tennessee (at home).

    In 2014, they lost 3 of 7 such games, but that was with a year-long compromised and then completely injured up OL and 2 back-up qbs, one of whom got benched. It’s reasonable to expect them to beat the 7-9 Vikes and 8-8 49ers at home, but they lost those 2. They also lost to the Giants in a winnable game. But then they won against Tampa, SF, Oakland, and Washington.

    Overall their record in such games is 12-7 (63%). But that avg. number hides the difference between 2012-3 and 2014. Before 2014, it’s 8-4 (67%). In 2014, it’s 4-3 (57%)

    So anyway, granting the team was young and often dealing with qb and OL injuries, the games that meet JL’s descriptions include the 2012 Jets game, the 2013 Titans game, and the 2014 Vikes and Giants games. I think it’s those 4 games that give them the taint of maddening inconsistency. Of those, the one that doesn;t really bother me is the 2014 Vikes game, the opener. They were a mess when they started that season IMO. The issue in that game wasn’t preparation or lack of focus. The Jets, Titans, and Giants game do fit the description. Maybe this year’s Washington game, but I dunno yet…in the end it could turn out that Washington was a much tougher team than we thought at first, especially playing them on the road.
    ..

    .

    #33215
    wv
    Participant

    For me, 7 and 9 teams on the road are included
    in the “teams u should beat category.”
    As well as eight and eight teams.

    But for me, I’m not looking at who they are ‘favored’
    over — I’m looking at “who should you beat
    IF you are going to be considered a good/solid team

    So far, the past gazillion years,
    and to state the obvious,
    they have ‘not’ been
    a good solid team.

    And we agree on the ‘reasons’ they
    havent been a good team.

    This year they have more high-level-talent
    and experience than in years past.
    At least they do everywhere but the Oline.

    w
    v

    #33217
    nittany ram
    Moderator

    Well, this season the Rams have lost to two teams they should have beaten. They lost to Washington on the road and Pittsburgh at home. Yes, the Pittsburgh game is a game they should have won. They had them at home and knocked Rothlisberger out of the game. They beat one team they should have (Browns). So this year so far they are 1-2 in games they should have won. So, what Laurinaitis says is true only if beating the Browns is the start of a trend. But that’s something nobody can know as of yet.

    #33218
    wv
    Participant

    Well, this season the Rams have lost to two teams they should have beaten. They lost to Washington on the road and Pittsburgh at home. Yes, the Pittsburgh game is a game they should have won. They had them at home and knocked Rothlisberger out of the game. They beat one team they should have (Browns). So this year so far they are 1-2 in games they should have won. So, what Laurinaitis says is true only if beating the Browns is the start of a trend. But that’s something nobody can know as of yet.

    —————————

    I agree.

    I will be very very disappointed if they lose
    at home, to a crumbling mess like the 49ers
    which is 31st in defense and 32nd in offense.

    w
    v

    #33220
    zn
    Moderator

    Well, this season the Rams have lost to two teams they should have beaten. They lost to Washington on the road and Pittsburgh at home.

    I’m using a different approach than you. I am saying, in advance, could the Rams reasonably be favored.

    Some say the Washington game fits that. I dunno yet. There’s a possibility that Washington is better than we assumed.

    I don’t count the Pittsburgh game. No one gave the Rams a chance in that game.

    Why did they lose either game? IMO because the offense is going to take time.

    So to me, you’re saying that’s a game they COULD HAVE won. (GB too for that matter.) But to me, even that’s a nice glass half-full surprise. It was not a thing anyone thought in advance, BR going out or not. In the end Pitts. will be a team with a winning record and looking back, will not count as a team anyone would reasonably expect the Rams SHOULD HAVE won, though it was a nice revelation that they COULD HAVE won it.

    #33224
    nittany ram
    Moderator

    Well, this season the Rams have lost to two teams they should have beaten. They lost to Washington on the road and Pittsburgh at home.

    I’m using a different approach than you. I am saying, in advance, could the Rams reasonably be favored.

    Some say the Washington game fits that. I dunno yet. There’s a possibility that Washington is better than we assumed.

    I don’t count the Pittsburgh game. No one gave the Rams a chance in that game.

    Why did they lose either game? IMO because the offense is going to take time.

    So to me, you’re saying that’s a game they COULD HAVE won. (GB too for that matter.) But to me, even that’s a nice glass half-full surprise. It was not a thing anyone thought in advance, BR going out or not. In the end Pitts. will be a team with a winning record and looking back, will not count as a team anyone would reasonably expect the Rams SHOULD HAVE won, though it was a nice revelation that they COULD HAVE won it.

    Well I counted the Steelers game as a game they should have won partly because I misremembered some things about the Steelers including thinking Bell was out for that game. However, I still think Rothlisberger’s injury made that game a ‘should win’ game but I’m not as married to that as I was.

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by nittany ram.
    #33227
    zn
    Moderator

    However, I still think Rothlisberger’s injury made that game a ‘should win’ game but I’m not as married to that as I was

    I think in another 100 or so post exchange on this, we can reach the stage where we testily agree to disagree, while getting in some passive aggressive jabs at one another.

    Or we can just say this is how we differ—I;m a glass half-full kinda guy, and you are looking at the wrong table and mistaking the wrong glass for an armadillo.

    #33228
    joemad
    Participant

    I don’t count the Pittsburgh game. No one gave the Rams a chance in that game.

    Rams were favored vs Pittsburgh

    URL = http://www.footballlocks.com/nfl_lines_week_3.shtml

    #33230
    zn
    Moderator

    I don’t count the Pittsburgh game. No one gave the Rams a chance in that game.

    Rams were favored vs Pittsburgh

    URL = http://www.footballlocks.com/nfl_lines_week_3.shtml

    Yeah, that’s what I meant.

    #33236
    rfl
    Participant

    I feel like I read a different set of comments by JL than the ones others are apparently responding to.

    For me, it isn’t about W/L. And JL is NOT talking about W/L.

    He is talking about discipline. Preparation. Effort. Intensity. About being competitive.

    He is saying (and I totally agree) that against the the “good” teams–the INSPIRING teams–the Rams have had a different level of intensity than against the lesser teams.

    Now, this has an effect on the W/L results. But the 2 are not synonymous. A poor but building team can lose to a premier team, but do it in a way that shows growing competitive intensity. And a team can win a game against a lousy team, but do it unconvincingly.

    JL is speaking as a member of the team. A leader over half a decade of futility. And he is making a confession. He is admitting that the team has been uneven in its competitiveness. And he is saying they are learning to grow out of it.

    You can’t “put numbers” to what he is saying by going over past W/L records and trying to control for times when conditions were right or wrong. None of that has anything to do with what JL is saying.

    He is SAYING that they have competed unevenly and missed chances because of shoddy preparation and performance. He is saying that as a player and leader on the team. He speaks as a player who stepped onto and then left the field in games where HE KNEW that the team had let itself down.

    And I for one am delighted to hear him say it. It is exactly what is needed, and it gets at what I have been ranting about for 2 years.

    This team has let itself down repeatedly over the last 2 years. It has nothing to do with backup QBs or injured OLs or W/L records. It has to do with a team that gets up for some games and shows it can compete, but lets itself down in many others. It’s not about talent. It’s not about W/L. It’s not about health.

    It’s about competitive discipline. THAT is what he is talking about.

    Competitive discipline takes a team to its ceiling. Yes, that ceiling at any moment of time is affected by talent, experience, health, etc. It’s affected by the opposition. It’s reflected in the W/L record. But none of those variables lift a team to its ceiling … or depress it to its floor. What does that is competitive discipline … or the lack thereof.

    We have our D unit captain talking directly about that issue. Not about W/L as such.

    And I think this is a great sign, because I hear something different in his words. JL has been in the league a long time, longer than the average player career. He has played on a bad, losing team year after year. Several times during each of those years, that team has shown flashes. And the flashes have always been quickly followed by collapses.

    Now, I have heard the vets on the team speak about all this before. I have heard them say, “We gotta start winning these games.” “We gotta start getting off to fast starts.” “We gotta start …”

    It has always in the past been hypothetical. A theory and responsibility about what needs to happen. A sort of wish statement, a wistful imagining of what would winning WOULD BE like. A resolution to aspire to do what it takes to win consistently.

    But there has never been any real conviction in the remarks. ‘Cause JL, Chris Long, guys like this have lived through long seasons of failure in which the wishes never came true. The resolutions never materialized. The competitive discipline never lasted beyond a game or two.

    However, I hear–or fancy that I hear–in these remarks a different note. JL is not saying “We need to approach these games as we do tougher games.” He is saying, “Hey! This time WE DID IT! We showed discipline facing an uninspiring game against a bad team. That’s what we have needed to do AND NOW WE ARE BEGINNING TO ACTUALLY DO IT.”

    Look. I’ve been on about something for 2 years. I’ve ranted and railed about it. I’ve pestered you guys and poured water on high hopes and leveled harsh criticism at our team. But is HAS NOT BEEN about talent or W/L. It’s always been about what JL is talking about here.

    This team has not been able to play tough except now and then. Whatever the conditions. The variables. Who the QB is. It has had a decades-long habit of, maybe 60% of the time, playing DOWN BELOW whatever its capabilities are at a given moment. That’s WHY I’ve cautioned against believing in the flashes. Flashes are not enough. To be any good, a team needs to understand how to GRIND.

    Here, I perceive JL saying, in effect, “We haven’t known how to grind. This last week, we DID GRIND. We showed ourselves what it’s like to do it. And because we are learning how to grind … we are going to start playing like winners.”

    IF–it’s a big IF–IF the team learned in the CLE game how to grind, IF it has MANIFESTLY AND ON THE FIELD begun to demonstrate that it is willing and able to prepare and play with consistent toughness …

    Then it will win a few more games this year and be poised to actually contend next year. This really is that important. Without regard for health or talent levels we need to improve at some positions, a team that can GRIND will win more games than the same team could without grinding. And a team that doesn’t know how to grind will always let you down on the verge of achievement.

    So. Am I reading too much into JL’s comments? Sure, taken by itself. It’s just one tell-tail stirring on the mast with a freshening breeze. I am far from convinced that we can do it AGAIN against the Whiners this week.

    Nevertheless, it’s damn good to hear our senior captain openly confessing the slackness of the past and even better to hear him SEEM to feel the discipline is actually emerging. ‘Cause out of that, contention will grow. Not out of sheer talent acquisition or health.

    By virtue of the absurd ...

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.