Couple thing to note ZN.You were right on two counts.
1.The team needed time to learn the defense.
2.Davis has a weak arm and is still learning.

Does anyone know why the Rams don’t run screen plays?

Bernie is a thin skinned blowhard.He will say anything to stir the pot.He’s still sore about how the Rams have basically phased him out so writes these negative OP’s and it’s getting old.

The interceptions against Dallas,Minn and SF still concerns me but it’s still too early to tell

Mackeyser wrote:

Based on the last few weeks of terribly suspicious refereeing… I’ve been talking to a friend about how the “narrative” in the NFL seems to be following a script right out of the WWE and guided almost ham-handedly by the Refs.

Witness the Denver-Jets game. That game should have been as lopsided as the Baltimore-Tampa game, but the Refs refused to allow that. If the Jets hadn’t been so damned inept, they would have easily taken that game because the Refs did everything in their power to hand it to them. As someone who’s watched football my entire adult life, there’s not such a fine line between even “home cooking” type calls and the egregious non-calls and obvious phantom calls that are plaguing the game today.

And I’ll reiterate what I said earlier… when the replacement Refs were there, they made bad mistakes, but they didn’t do what’s being done now… and ya know? We saw teams win that normally don’t win. We saw teams NOT get any benefit of the doubt. We didn’t see many of these weird disparate games where one team had 11 penalties for a gazillion yards and the other team had 1 penalty for 5 yards. Now, we see several games like that EACH WEEK, it affects the games dramatically AND they seem to follow some narrative.

Now, I get that all of that is probably some “Beautiful Mind” stuff of seeing patterns that aren’t there. Okay, fine. However, I just really believe that something’s going on. People refused to believe anything was happening in the NBA until they found that Refs were fixing games. I’m just saying that it’s a possibility and the (to my mind) suspect refereeing only lends itself to that narrative.

So, what’s my point?

Well, based on all that, I talked with my friend a few weeks ago. Started with the 9er/Eagles game. I told him that there was NO WAY the NFL would allow them to go 0-2 in that new stadium. After watching the refs ensure that the Eagles couldn’t do anything o offense, the 9ers STILL almost lost that game… and that was with the Refs basically handing them the game.

With the Cards at 4-1 and Seattle at 3-2, I just can’t see the NFL allowing the 9ers, a team they still see as being one of the elite teams to fall to 3-3. If the 9ers are going to miss the playoffs, it won’t be because of the Rams…

I think the Rams will put up a good fight, but either it’ll be a blowout or the 9ers will play like total shyte and get every call in order to get the victory.

Either way, I don’t think we stand much of a chance of actually winning. I just can’t see the NFL ALLOWING the Rams to win.

That’s my cynical take. I’ll take off my cynical hat now. I can’t wear it for too long. It’s like the One Ring…

You hit the nail on the head because that call against Cook was bogus.

Yeah but what bothers me the most is how a couple of veterans(Long,Wells) continuously play like first year players

• This reply was modified 10 years, 2 months ago by cgsuddeath.

I spent time with my family at a Ukranian festival.

The defense is not a fraud.They are learning a new scheme and it takes time just like it did for NO,Washington and Tennesse.Give them time.

zn wrote:

Agamemnon wrote:
<The Rams weren’t ready to play. I blame Fisher for this one.

And if Hill was playing hurt?

Lots of angry fans out there Zack.I for one don’t understand why the OL looked out of sync.I’m not a big Saffold fan.He’s been on the Rams as long as Bradford and if you don’t include this year has been injured more than Bradford.Not to mention to see his team loyalty this past offseason given his injury history.

zn wrote:

JJ Watt. I would play him at 3-tech in a 4/3.

+10000

zn wrote:

I don’t know if that’s anyone here, but it’s out there, on the net.

#1. Hill is better than any goll-durn rookie.

#2. They used the picks to build a solid team. If it works out that next year they bring in a expectations-setting namebrand rookie, he is better off coming to a solid team.

This whole get your qb and build the team around him thing is wearing on me. It should be the other way around.

That’s regardless what everyone says when it’s draft time.
Somehow I get the impression they’re done with Bradford despite all the sensationalist journalism going on.

Roethlisberger went to a solid team. They didn’t need him to spread his wings overnight. Flacco, same. Wilson, same. Kaepernick, same. Foles went to a team that already had probably the best OL in the game. Dalton, same. Rodgers, same.

After years of seeing *what* *happens*, I think it’s the better way.

So personally I don’t care whether or not they have some namebrand rookie. Hill will be better than any of them could be this year, and next year if they add one (which they probably will) that kid, whoever it is, will be better off coming to a team with some receivers, some experience, some maturity, an OL, and a defense.

.

Somehow I get the impression they’re not done with Bradford despite all the sensationalist journalism going on.

• This reply was modified 10 years, 4 months ago by cgsuddeath.

Thank you.As usual,there are a lot sensationalist journalism going on the drive home a ridiculously flawed point of view.