shoot why not? sign tim! how bad could it be?

i’m at a loss. i just expected a better result than this.

obviously, when hill went down, the chances of any kind of win went down the drain, but i expected something better than getting blown out at home.

i also think robinson needs to start soon. i have to believe that he could have made some difference in the running game. this offense is doomed without a running game.

the secondary was better than i expected which is a plus. i liked gaines and mcdonald. they were encouraging.

i’m also happy to see quick do well. hopefully, he can build on this.

I agree.

135 points per game would be awesome.

And only 4.7 points allowed?

That would be a dominant team, for sure.

yes. this.

that would be just fine.

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

oooh.

who wants to make a bet a music video comes out at some point called “sack city”.

i shudder.

i still think the running game has to carry this offense. so i’d add rushing yards per game.

130 rushing yards per game would put them in the top 10. last year was 109.5

more than that they averaged 4.1 yards per carry. it’d be nice if they could improve that to 4.5 yards per carry. that would have ranked in the top 10 last year.

i say win. i see this team just being better in all phases of the game compared to last year.

you know. a lot of key players are at a stage in their careers where they it could just click for them. i’m talking guys in the running back corps, wide receiver corps, defensive line, linebacker corps, and secondary. if they all click at the same time, it could be magical.

we’ll see, but i don’t think i’ve been this positive about the rams in a long time.

sorry. don’t mean to be stirring shit up. i started out as a st. louis rams fans. and i love the city of st. louis. great sports town.

but i get this weird feeling that they are moving to los angeles next year.

i don’t know about 13-3. but i like the optimism. i really like shaun hill. i think he’s a definite upgrade from last year, and i think we improve at most positions through experience alone.

i still think dallas, philadelphia, and the second seattle game are potential stumbling blocks, so i’d go 10-6.

my only hope is that time has caught up to adrian peterson.

he’s sitting at 2000 carries right now. right about the time nfl running backs start breaking down.

he’s 29 years old which is old for a running back. if he’s lucky, he’s got one solid season left in him. but i’m not sure we gotta worry about a 200 yard game from him.

i hope.

i expect us to see a lot of different things come sunday.

donald has been up and down this preseason. i think it goes to show just how difficult the defensive tackle position can be. even for someone as pro-ready as donald.

by the end of the season, i think we start to see the real aaron donald.

it makes the most sense to me to see either the chargers or rams move to los angeles. they have an existing fan base there. the raiders? probably not solid enough of an organization for the nfl to be supportive of that decision.

bradford’s injury can be overcome. like many have said here over and over again you just feel worse for bradford than the rams. that should always be true. but it’s especially true in this case. hill will be fine in this offense. oline has to get it together. i’m not as impressed with the running offense as most were. i think there’s a lot of work to do there still. and the wide receivers are the best they’ve had in some time. at least better than any in the last three years. so they should help out the qb too.

i’m also expecting big things out of the defense even though the secondary is looking kind of shaky right now.

but yeah. going back to my ap statement. that was wrong. 95% are a success. so that’s not the exception. i was going overboard. but again. maybe not enough attention was focused on the possibility of failure. what is the recovery rate then? i’m sure the doctors went over this with bradford.

in the end. sam is a competitor. and he was probably thinking i can do it. 5% is an acceptable risk to me. well now. he’s that exception. now what is the prognosis for recovery for that second tear?

the one article said 14%. but again. most people don’t get the best surgeon to do their reconstructive surgery so maybe it’s even lower than that. and that doesn’t take into account if the injury was isolated or not. and most people probably don’t go through the extensive rehab process that these athletes do. but if sam wants to be sure of a complete recovery. he better take the two full years to recover. which seems to be the best option at this point. anytime you have to go in a second time. you’re doing more damage. healing of that area is going to take longer than before. so if two years is ideal for first reconstructive surgery, then second reconstructive surgery should be longer than that. and even then. how long is that joint going to last? i read somewhere that acl surgeries last on average about 10 years. well. is that for professional athletes or just the general population? if it’s for the general population, then for professional athletes, it goes way down i’m sure.

oh i didn’t either. i shouldn’t have said “shoulda been considered” because at the time i was happy with the qb situation and confident that bradford would come back healthy. i guess my main point was that i didn’t like any of the qbs in 2014 at all. they were all over-drafted. bortles for example should have been a mid-first round pick at best.

i’m hoping the 2015 class is better.

well this is an article on second acl surgeries and why they fail.

one other thing i want to add. a lot also depends on the extent of damage. bradford’s was isolated meaning the other ligaments and cartilage were apparently intact. so he has that going for him. alexander’s injury i believe was not isolated. it probably looked like a plate of spaghetti in there.

http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/22661.aspx

Sports medicine specialists at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis are leading a national study analyzing why a second surgery to reconstruct a tear in the knee’s anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) carries a high risk of bad outcomes.

More than 200,000 ACL reconstruction surgeries are performed each year in the United States, and 1 percent to 8 percent fail for some reason. Most of those patients then opt to have their knee ligament reconstructed a second time, but the failure rate on those subsequent surgeries is almost 14 percent.

The Washington University group has received a $2.6 million grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and is leading dozens of surgeons across the nation in one of the largest orthopedic, multicenter studies ever conducted. The MARS study (Mutlicenter ACL Revision Study) is comparing surgical techniques and analyzing outcomes for patients undergoing ACL surgery to learn why a subsequent reconstruction is more likely to fail than an initial ACL repair.

“If I reconstruct the ACL in your knee, and you go back to sports, and three years later you pivot on a basketball court and tear it again, that subsequent surgery often does not have results equal to the original surgery,” says Rick W. Wright, MD, the MARS study’s principal investigator. “In a previous study, we found that the strongest predictor for a bad outcome after ACL surgery was whether that surgery was the initial reconstruction or a subsequent procedure.”

Wright, professor of orthopaedic surgery, co-chief of Washington University’s Sports Medicine Service and an orthopedic surgeon at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, has helped recruit 87 surgeons from 52 centers to participate in the MARS study. All are sports medicine specialists who are members of the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine. Surgeons involved in the study include both academic physicians and those in private practice.

During ACL reconstruction, surgeons sometimes replace the torn knee ligament with a ligament transplanted from a cadaver. In other cases, the surgeon will move a piece of the hamstring muscle or the patellar tendon and attach it in place of the torn ligament.

Wright and his colleagues are recruiting patients for the MARS study who have a second tear of the ACL. They plan to enroll 1,000 patients at the various centers around the country and follow them for at least two years to identify predictors of problems after surgery.

Surgeons will note the condition of the knee and how the original surgery was performed to see whether that predicts problems with a subsequent operation. They also will make note of the surgical technique initially used and whether the ACL graft used in the initial reconstruction came from a cadaver, from the hamstring muscle or from the patellar tendon.

Surgeons also will compare rehabilitation techniques and whether particular approaches are related to better, or worse, outcomes. Patients also will be surveyed about their knee function, the general state of their health and their quality of life before and after a second ACL surgery.

Those participating in the MARS study must be older than 12, but there is no upper age limit.

“By definition, most of the people in the study will be active,” Wright says. “ Most are athletes who want to continue to compete, but the study also is open to those who just need knee surgery so they can get back to work.”

The ACL plays a crucial role in our ability to cut, jump, twist and change directions. Even in people who don’t compete in sports, ACL tears are related to having a knee give out, and when that happens, says Wright, it can damage the knee’s meniscus, the rubbery disc that cushions the knee and keeps it steady. If the knee gives out it also can tear cartilage in the joint, contribute to arthritis and increase the risk that an individual will someday require total knee replacement surgery.