InvaderRam wrote:

yeah. it doesn’t hurt less. i saw this scenario playing out the way it did, but i was hoping i was wrong.

it hurts, but i’m still enthusiastic. i just feel at some point the talent on this defense has to shine through. maybe not this year. maybe not with fisher as head coach. it would be truly disappointing if it didn’t cuz again. this defense has too much talent to be this bad.

that hurt me more than anything else. foles? this is the foles i expected, and i felt that he got lucky last week. ok maybe not this bad but somewhere in between last week and this week. but this defense? they should be ashamed of themselves. they really should. that was bad. get rid of those mob squad shirts. please. wait until they’ve actually done it like that gsot offense did.

need to get gurley back, and need gurley to be what they drafted him to be. a franchise running back. but even then, this offensive line looks meek. gotta keep pushing guys.

Yes, please ixnay the Mob Squad shirts and any remaining Sack City shirts and/or any other shirts with prematurely conceived and undeserved nicknames on them as well.

InvaderRam wrote:

chat room was way buggy.

rams couldn’t stop the run. they couldn’t run the ball. foles was erratic although to his credit he was getting hit a lot. even when he wasn’t getting sacked.

just emphasizes the need for the rams to be able to run the damn ball.

very disappointing performance by the rams defense. to me it just shows exactly how horrible that seahawks oline is.

The frustrating thing is that I knew there was a strong possibility of today’s game going exactly how it did but it still doesn’t keep it from stinging.

Forget…

• This reply was modified 9 years, 8 months ago by nittany ram.

zn wrote:

Well we know they CAN.

I vote that they WILL.

I am betting on this being they year a young team gets over its week-to-week inconsistency disease.

One thing I saw that fuels that belief—remember the chippy Rams who would get distracted by their own edginess? There was barely a sign of that last Sunday. It was just focused football.

..

Very good point about the chippiness. And there was an appreciable lack of mind-numbingly stupid penalties too. Perhaps this team is finally growing up?

That list is whack. I could come up with a better list in my sleep.

First of all, any serious discussion of the best films in history begins and ends with the “Twilight” franchise.

If you’re not willing to concede that TRUTH then don’t waste my time pretending to know cinema.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 8 months ago by nittany ram.

I thought I heard on one of the interviews posted here that the last 10 teams to beat the Seahawks are 0-10 against the spread the following week and 1-9 straight up?

Herzog wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

No way the Colts belong in the top 6 after the beatdown they got.

Even though zooey’s just a Raider fan and as such should be considered clinically insane, he does have a point about the Rams.

Beat the burgundy and yellow team on the road and then come back and beat the Steelers at home and I’ll believe they belong in conversations about the top ten.

Even a top ten team could lose one of those games

True, the Rams could lose one of those games and still finish the season in the top 10.

But what evidence do we have to say they belong in the top 10 at this early stage of the season unless they beat both of those teams?

rfl wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

Don’t think this current team is ready to finish 14-2 like that team did but 2-0 would still be a nice start.

Agreed. Their ceiling is not where it was for the ’01 team.

I’m thinking that, if they pass this test and go on to play tough all year, they’ll have a realistic shot at 10-6 and maybe a playoff win. That’s being competitive.

If they fail to capitalize on the SEA game, I see them more at the 8-8 stage, on the verge of competing, but not really getting there.

Yeah, I think 10-6 is a realistic goal for an emerging team like this one. I think they have better than 10-6 talent, but youth and inexperience on the o-line is going to hold them back some. Plus, there are emerging stars on this team who will backslide from time to time even though their trajectory is on an upward trend overall.

NERam wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

As JT says, if not for the self inflicted injuries the Rams would have run the two-time defending NFC Champions right out of the building.

I’m as giddy as a wee girl.

Is a wee girl someone small in stature, or one that gets overly excited?

It’s one with incontinence.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 8 months ago by nittany ram.

As JT says, if not for the self inflicted injuries the Rams would have run the two-time defending NFC Champions right out of the building.

I’m as giddy as a wee girl.

Dak wrote:

This is the thing: The Rams beat themselves. AND, they beat the Seahawks. They should be 2-0 after that game.

The biggest play that started the turnaround to give the ‘Hawks a chance was the I. Pead fumble. Man, just hold onto the ball. That’s all you have to do at that point. I was most disappointed in that play than just about anything else that happened. Obviously, the fumble and TD return was the biggest play for Seattle in that turnaround, but I’m not sure who I blame there. Anybody know how that happened? Did Foles just miss the blitz there?

My guess is the fault of missing the corner blitz is on Foles.
It’s not like it was disguised, the corner was on the LOS before the snap.
I’d cut Peade as soon as Gurley is ready to play.

InvaderRam wrote:

it is a special time isn’t it? dare i say i’m starting to get those same feelings i used to get watching faulk, bruce, and holt play way back then.

Quinn, Brochers, Donald and Long is the defensive analogue to Warner, Bruce, Holt and Faulk.

Don’t know what this team is going to accomplish yet but the d-line is special.

Zooey wrote:

I would be concerned if I was a hawks fan. They didn’t even seem to be aware of the youth/inexperience of the Rams OL, or they might feel even worse.

I dunno. Sometimes the wheels come off on a good team that loses a SB. They have GB next week, and might be 0-2 to start the season.

Anyway, that was fun to read.

Yeah, they gave up THREE touchdown drives of 80 yards or more to a team with two rookies, a second year guy and a first time starter on the o-line. Plus they were playing without their two best backs and a starting receiver.

That was not an inspired effort by the defense. I don’t know what game that last commenter was watching.

That play where he flipped it to Cunningham with the pocket collapsing on him and a defender on his back was something I don’t remember any previous Rams QB being able to pull off with the possible exception of Warner.

That ability to improvise when everything is breaking down is one area where Foles is superior to Bradford. Foles also seems to be better than Bradford when he has defenders in his face. Bradford needed a really clean pocket.

rfl wrote:

PS, watching the NFL Channel replay of that last play, one saw BOTH Ram DTs destroying the rushing attempt.

I mean, that’s defensive football heaven, when BOTH of your DTs step up like that.

However, I see on the stats sources that we gave up 125 yards or so rushing. I imagine some of that was RW scrambling? Hmmmmm.

Brochers was an immovable object all day. Donald was like a penetrating dementor. They gave up a 20 yard run to Lynch once and a 10 yarder where he carried half the defense on his back but for the most part he was bottled up.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 9 months ago by nittany ram.