It would make my day to see somebody do a Bo Jackson/Brian Bosworth on Ernest Jones tomorrow.

I dunno what happened with Jones, but I do not want to watch that guy get his revenge.

wv wrote:

A ‘panel.’

So the Illuminati.

Just say so.

zn wrote:

The cold got to them both,Then, though, CW’s WRs had 4 drops and the Rams had one (previously it was said the Rams had none but PFR has it as 1). Stafford was sacked 4 times–though he faced a lower pressure rate than CW (19.6% v. 24.4%). But the big deal was 3 INTs.

My eyeballs agree. Stafford and Williams played to a draw in many respects, but the INTs were big. I think the short yardage stops are the #1 thing I would point to as the difference-maker, though. The Bears would have won the game in regulation if not for those huge plays that went the Rams’ way, and there would have been only 2 INTs.

The Rams may have had one drop, but there should be a statistic that tracks Net Hands Value or something. Drops and Catches should get a value score because not all drops and catches are the same. A 3rd down drop by a wide open receiver that would have picked up 30 yards, but instead leads to a punt, should count as more than 1 drop. And the way I see it, Adams’ sideline catch should get a Net Hands Value of 4 catches. That catch was athletically extraordinary, and had immense importance for the winning drive.

You can’t make this shit up, people. That’s Entertainment.

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

A birds-eye angle on the miracle-throw

The most talked-about tying TD pass of all time.

In that game CW was 23 of 42 for 257 yards and a 6.1 avg. per throw, w/ 2 TDs and 3 INTs, and a qb rating of 59.3. The cold got to him too. His season averages were 27 TDs & 7 INTs.

But he did throw the most talked-about tying TD pass of all time.

I of course acknowledge that play, and even in a perverse way am glad I saw it in real time because it really was spectacular, but as a Rams homer I also like that Stafford was clutch when it counted.

Yep. I thought the game was over when Williams turned his back to the line of scrimmage and ran the other way. The most talked-about tying TD pass of all time didn’t trigger a sinking feeling in me at all. I couldn’t even be mad about it. It was too spectacular to respond negatively.

And, anyway, the Rams won in large part because Williams got greedy the next time he had the ball. He had the RB open as a safety valve that would have moved the Bears 5 or 6 yards to make it 3rd and 2 or 3. Instead, Williams threw the ball to where only Curl could catch it. Williams believed he was magic. He learned that he is not.

Zooey wrote:

zn wrote:

Rams are playing Seattle this week. Kimes is becoming less and less of a decent journalist when it comes to discussing Seattle’s opponents.

Mina Kimes: “Goddamn Rams.”

I like Mina Kimes, btw. She’s really good. But I do agree the fan in her has been getting the upper hand over the past month.

I was a bit surprised to see the comic analysis (woman whose name I’ve forgotten…Agar?) show up as a Packers fan, but she didn’t let that get in the way of her schtick.

zn wrote:

Yes. It’s time for the Rams to institute their plan to “Josh Allen” Caleb Williams.

I know this plan, it’s diabolical. It will lead to a massacre of successive head coaches who “can’t turn the corner.”

Bwa-ha-ha. Evil grin.

I sometimes watch USC. When they are relevant. And they were relevant when Caleb Williams was there, so I saw a handful of games, and I thought he was an NFL QB.

Then… last year he seemed lost. Or so I heard, since I didn’t watch the Bears play any. And I just thought, well… Matt Leinart, Mark Sanchez, Sam Darnold… all these USC guys looked like good QBs, and then evaporated in the Pros (*Darnold may be reborn…judgment pending).

Watching Caleb Williams in his two playoff games. My goodness. Better than he was at USC. With Ben Johnson? With another camp under Johnson, Caleb Williams might just wreck the NFC. He has EVERYTHING except experience.

The Josh Allen plan is the only available kryptonite. Or the Rams could trade Jared Goff and a couple of the Lions’ first round picks for him.

Zooey wrote:

wv wrote:

The Bear game was a bit like that. Anybody feel like the Rams ‘outplayed’ the Bears in that game? I dunno.

Yes. Not by much, but yes. For me it is the 4th down plays on both sides. The Rams stopped them. And the Rams got a big one.

From a vid you posted, here’s a stack of the “make or break” plays in short yardage that the Rams won. This line play reminded my of the 1970s. “You’re not getting that yard.”

wv wrote:

The Bear game was a bit like that. Anybody feel like the Rams ‘outplayed’ the Bears in that game? I dunno.

Yes. Not by much, but yes. For me it is the 4th down plays on both sides. The Rams stopped them. And the Rams got a big one.

zn wrote:

That was a running commentary (so to speak) in chat. Where’s the run game, where’s the run game. It’s a running commentary (so to speak) in twitter. Maybe the post-game articles will come up with something to explain it, other than it just being McVay mishandling playcalling.

And Stafford was way off in that game. Plus, lucky thing that unlike the Rams, the Bears defenders don’t know how to catch the ball. Nacua, under these conditions, was not his usual dominant self, though he came through a number of times (he caught only 50%).

But here’s what I saw that I didn’t expect. Remember earlier in the season when the Rams defense included good secondary play? Well as much as this group can do that, it did it. The secondary was tighter this game than in the last few games.

In the end what won it for the Rams (IMO) were 2 things. The INTs, and Stafford, in spite of a rough game, being steady eddy when it counted. No matter what happened (sacked 4 times, less than 50% completions) he bounced back up and engineered enough scoring drives to win it. It was clear this was not the Rams usual offensive dominance, cause it was in snow and wind and cold on the road…so the game came down to them toughing it out to do just enough to win. For that to happen Stafford had to be unflappable and just keep slugging away. He did it. Remember this is a comeback overtime win for him (comebacks count against ties).

It might sound odd, but I am glad Caleb Williams came through with huge plays. I am glad he was everything he was advertized to be. Including that impossible tying TD at the close of regulation. First, because it was fun to see–in spite of it coming at the Rams expense. But also because this way, the Rams beat them in spite of a good showing by Williams. He wasn’t like Stroud falling apart for the Texans. No, Williams was everything he was supposed to be, but the Rams toughed out a win nevertheless.

I like that post.

I expected this game to feature an emphasis on running, with screens and 10-12 yard passes mixed in, and the occasional “keep-em-honest” shots downfield on 2nd and 2. And here’s Stafford wildly missing receivers again and again. Was it bad traction so WRs didn’t get where they were supposed to? I don’t think so. For the icy conditions, we actually didn’t see a lot of slipping on the field. Cold? Sprained finger? I dunno. Off game from Stafford, though, and another one of those games (which he has cut waaay down on) where McVay seems to call plays like he’s playing Madden in his den. What are you doing? And we’re all very lucky that none of those errant throws came down in the arms of a defender because many of them were not even close.

You’re absolutely right about the secondary play. It was tighter than it’s been since Lake’s injury, and it may not be coincidence that we Lake had his name called out on crucial plays here and there. (How about that highlight tackle?). And as much as – at the time – I had a WTF? reaction to Durant being way off Kmet, that was a tough ask: to track some guy for 20 seconds all over creation. He couldn’t watch Kmet AND Caleb at the same time and that pass did not get thrown in the ordinary amount of time. And you just have to give it up to Caleb Williams. I’m sure you all thought, as I did, when the pocket broke down and Williams went into full retreat that the game was over. That pass had to have single-digit probability of success. It was a ridiculous play. If that had been a game-winner, we would see that highlight from time-to-time for the next 40 years, along with the Immaculate Reception and the Dwight Clark catch. So the secondary was the difference in this game. Credit to the DL for getting relentless pressure (although no sacks) on Williams all night. The defense held Chicago to 17. That’s getting the job done.

And I like your point about Stafford. It’s hard to believe this offense is statistically comparable to the GSOT bc the GSOT looked effortless. This group looks like the lunch pail variety of offense. I have confidence in Stafford. He can have long, ineffective stretches, but there is a “winning time” switch in him. He just cannot be demoralized or rattled.

The Rams nearly got bounced last week, and nearly got bounced this week, but strangely, I never got that sinking feeling in either game.

Next week will be epic.