LA fans are just bandwagon fans, though tradition helps in LA just like it does everywhere else. The Dodgers and Lakers have had down years, and attendance drops, but they have a tradition of being in the mix. The Rams will get it together, but they have to show the fans they are worth watching.

Did you notice the empty seats in Jacksonville yesterday? And I don’t know what their stadium holds, but it sure as hell isn’t the coliseum.

The Rams sold a ton of tickets for the first half of last year. But last year left ashes in the mouth, and that is hardly a good football venue. If you think LA won’t pack Kroenkeworld, though, you’re out of your mind. Rams fans will pack the place. But if the Rams suck, the fans will leave. LA has a lot of options. That really IS part of the package there.

Patrick Peterson left the game yesterday with a quad injury. No word on whether he will play Sunday or not.

I’m hoping…not.

Smoke.

Smoke them like a sausage in a refinery fire.

I couldn’t remember. But now I do. It’s “smoke.”

That was RFL who originally wrote that, wasn’t it?

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

I am conflicted about whether its a ‘bad’ rule.

Well then, in what sense could it be considered a good rule. What does it do that might be considered good.

It punishes fumblers.

You should know by now how the WV feels about players who spill the ball on the carpet.

It used to still belong to the fumbling team at the one, I think. I believe that is one of the rules they changed sometime ago, along with the no forward fumbling rule that came about due to the famous Stabler fumble.

One other “singular” play. Whitworth. Hadn’t allowed but one pressure all year, and he gets beaten with Goff getting blown up for a fumble.

Still. I like the way WV put it: the Rams are a team on the rise, and Seattle is on the decline.

wv wrote:

I didnt see it. Someone sum it up.

I see the rams had….five turnovers. FIVE turnovers?

I’m betting at least two were by tavon.

w
v

One by Tavon. He fumbled twice, though. Recovered his own fumble the first time. After the second muff, he was removed from punt returns.

The guy is done, imo. He’s good for 5 or 6 touches a game out of the backfield, and that’s it. He’s a goner.

Wow. I’m a little surprised by the responses. I was expecting to get cheered up by you guys.

Okay. Here goes. First off, I didn’t enjoy watching that game. Not just because they lost. I would have come here saying I didn’t enjoy it even if the Rams had won, even if Kupp made that catch at the end. It was not enjoyable.

I think, though, that the Rams are better than the Seahawks right now, and I think they should have won that game. So…there’s that.

That was a close to a complete team collapse on the Rams’ part, and they still almost won the game.

The Rams’ defense played well enough to win. The DL was all over it. Donald and Quinn had big games, and the Hawks rushed for nothing. They contained Wilson, and shut down everything. The Seahawks got one really good drive…a 75-yard drive resulting in a TD. Then they had two FG drives, 43 yards, and 51 yards, and a gift FG after a turnover. That’s it. That’s what Seattle mustered all day long in spite of 5 turnovers. I believe three of those were inside Rams’ territory. The muffed punt for sure, and the Goff fumble. And I think the deflected pachinko pass that ended up intercepted was also in Rams’ territory.

The Rams drove right down their throat on the first possession. That was an absolute fluke play at the end, and it was the difference in the game, imo. I don’t blame Gurley. He was reaching for the goal line, and whozit hit his arm and dislodged the ball momentarily BEFORE Gurley’s foot touched out of bounds (so I disagree with those of you who thought the fumble was later. I think the replay clearly showed they made the right call on review…as much as I hate it). And the ball happened to hit the pylon. If it hadn’t hit the pylon, they would have ruled it out 1 foot short, and the Rams would have scored a TD, gone up by 7 points, and who knows how that would have affected things psychologically from that point. But we do know it would have added 7 points to the Rams’ total, and they would have won that game.

Nothing went right for the Rams. Bad throws by Goff, muffed punt, bad bounces, 5 turnovers, missed FG, penalties. And they still almost won that game.

It’s not worth anything in the standings, but the Rams – in spite of everything – still played better overall than the Seahawks. I am very unhappy about the outcome. But that showed me a turning tide in the NFC West. The Rams will beat them in Seattle.

Sounds like a good day.

Can you drop off some sandwiches at the chat room before you go?

Ozoneranger wrote:

However, I’d rather be gunned down by an armed intruder than have one of my grandchildren hurt by a weapon I may own

That’s me.

And statistically, a grandchild is more likely to be hurt or killed with your gun than an intruder is.

I dunno. I used to be FOR getting rid of guns. Now…I dunno. I get where some people are coming from.

But I do NOT understand the resistance to gun training, licensing, and screening. And these automatic weapons…I mean…stop it. I don’t know how they are even debatable.

You want protection? Get a handgun, and pass safety training and a marksmanship test. Wanna hunt? Same thing.

Protect yourself from the government? There’s no such thing, and you aren’t using that as an excuse to buy battlefield weaponry. Get rid of internet sales, gun shows, and so on.

You can have a gun – I guess – but it’s going to be within reason, and you are going to demonstrate competency.

But I give up. That’s not happening.