Post here if you are 11-3 and look one and done

[Wamu]

does 9-5 count

Shit where did you find that picture of Tom Brady in 5 years?

 

[Fountain City Blues]

Chicago dared them to run?


You see Goff learn a bit in the Eagles game but the Rams D let them down a bit and the Eagles just made more plays.

I definitely don't agree it was selling out to stop the run. I say this because of how the Bears reacted to PA throughout the game. When Kollman says blitz to stop Gurley on the way to the QB or whatever, I don't think Gurley matters all that much, it's hit Goff, hit Gurley later. There's a subtle, but meaningful difference, imo. The Bears can sit in base against 3 WR's because they have Roquan and LB's that can move. That train of thought is actually pretty unusual to treat Gurley casually, imo. I think it's the other way around, actually.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

I definitely don't agree it was selling out to stop the run. I say this because of how the Bears reacted to PA throughout the game. When Kollman says blitz to stop Gurley on the way to the QB or whatever, I don't think Gurley matters all that much, it's hit Goff, hit Gurley later. There's a subtle, but meaningful difference, imo. The Bears can sit in base against 3 WR's because they have Roquan and LB's that can move. That train of thought is actually pretty unusual to treat Gurley casually, imo. I think it's the other way around, actually.

I'd need to rewatch, but I would be less than shocked to find out Gurley's best runs that night are on draws.

 

[Clayton]

I definitely don't agree it was selling out to stop the run. I say this because of how the Bears reacted to PA throughout the game. When Kollman says blitz to stop Gurley on the way to the QB or whatever, I don't think Gurley matters all that much, it's hit Goff, hit Gurley later. There's a subtle, but meaningful difference, imo. The Bears can sit in base against 3 WR's because they have Roquan and LB's that can move. That train of thought is actually pretty unusual to treat Gurley casually, imo. I think it's the other way around, actually.

I'm guessing you already watched the video based on how quickly you responded but a big part of the video is simply Goff making mistakes. The passing game was there and Goff made the wrong reads.

The Rams had issues running against the Bears base defense so they needed Goff to dink and dunk all game and instead he tried to do the deep pass and got himself embarrassed. We saw this happen to the Chiefs late last year and I think its happening to the Rams a little bit, too. Its not happening to the Chiefs as much this year because Mahomes can rollout and Hill can find a hole in any zone coverage.

Rams would still be top 3 if I did an NFL power rankings right now. I think they'll be fine moving forward but its all up to Goff on winning a Super Bowl

 

[Fountain City Blues]

I'm guessing you already watched the video based on how quickly you responded but a big part of the video is simply Goff making mistakes. The passing game was there and Goff made the wrong reads.

The Rams had issues running against the Bears base defense so they needed Goff to dink and dunk all game and instead he tried to do the deep pass and got himself embarrassed. We saw this happen to the Chiefs late last year and I think its happening to the Rams a little bit, too. Its not happening to the Chiefs as much this year because Mahomes can rollout and Hill can find a hole in any zone coverage.

Oh, I agree about Goff. I am #RBsDontMatter guy after all. I'd just point out the Bears 3-4 looks is not a normal 3-4. It's not exactly Hitchens and Ragland out there.

 

[Clayton]

Oh, I agree about Goff. I am #RBsDontMatter guy after all. I'd just point out the Bears 3-4 looks is not a normal 3-4. It's not exactly Hitchens and Ragland out there.

I think the other 3 loss teams also have the same 'QB reads' issues with Mahomes Ints sometimes being costly and Rivers Ints sometimes being costly. Certainly the Chiefs could've sealed the game away against the Chargers with another Int.

I think all of the teams are in the same boat. Chiefs O might be a little better than the other two but the other two have slightly better pieces on defense. The Quarterbacks are going to have to win it.

 

[shopson67]

Meh, anything can happen yet. HFA is important though. Rams might have cost themselves that last night. They sure don't look unbeatable anymore but nobody really does. For now, Saints back to being the favorite in the NFC but we could even question that by tomorrow. Been a crazy weekend.

Saints do have at Panthers/Steelers/Panthers left, so they could lose one or two as well. Rams are probably 2nd seed at best now, and have little wiggle room for any more poor performances.

 

[shopson67]

One thing I WILL say about the Rams is teams are teeing off on their tendencies. It's on McVay to not look like a stubborn fool and start throwing changeups, because they are locked and loaded for the fastball. When a really bad Lions D slows you down, and it becomes a trend after that, there's real concern, imo.

A lot of this goes back to Gurley hurting that knee vs the Saints, along with Kupp (who was Goff's safety valve). They are trying to ease Gurley through these games, but so much of the offense is based on play action and Gurley has been forced into that safety valve role to boot.

 

[shopson67]

Chicago dared them to run?


You see Goff learn a bit in the Eagles game but the Rams D let them down a bit and the Eagles just made more plays.

If not for that unforced fumble on the late punt return, I'm pretty confident the game goes to OT. Of course, that's no victory guarantee. Too many bad turnovers and that botched fake punt, not to mention that unexplainable bomb with two Philly receivers behind the entire defense (which with the hit on the QB should've been a great chance for an INT) really left the Rams with too far to climb back.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Saints do have at Panthers/Steelers/Panthers left, so they could lose one or two as well. Rams are probably 2nd seed at best now, and have little wiggle room for any more poor performances.

Yup, agree 100% with you there. They can't slip up but at least have the Cards and 49ers to hopefully get things right. As we have seen, no gimmes this time of year. And the Saints could definitely slip too. Division games but 2 at home really gives the Saints the edge, imo. Rams have to win both and keep the Bears in the 3 seed too.

 

[Rock Strongo]

View attachment 193326

Last year's postseason versus this year's

the pats have lost back to back december games for the first time since i was 29. I'm...43 now.

 

[CaptainStubing]

the pats have lost back to back december games for the first time since i was 29. I'm...43 now.

I'm sorry for your loss(es)










Not really

 

[Rock Strongo]

I'm sorry for your loss(es)










Not really

 

[eaglesnut]

View attachment 193326

Last year's postseason versus this year's

Are you still enjoying peaking early in October?

 

[Hank Kingsley]

Are they taking away the run though? Chicago basically dared them and they couldn't or didn't want to. The other thing I'd point out is Watkins is probably back for the playoffs, and Kupp will not. Teams are starting to call the Rams' bluff with PA, imo.

I thought Gurley got dinged against Detroit in the first half. He didn't play or do much until late in that game. And he did didley fart against Chicago and yesterday as well.

 

[Brees#1]

LA's last two games are impossible to lose. If anyone loses a bye it's the saints. That's a real possibility if they lose to Pittsburgh. I think the saints would still win in Chicago though and play in the NFCCG. By then they could be going to LA or hosting Seattle. That said, LA should not lose to Chicago in divisional. LA should have that defense figured out and Chicago is not likely to win or engage in a shootout with that offense. I also don't see them losing to Philadelphia, Washington, or Minnesota but they could lose to Philadelphia or Minnesota. It's a moot point though because LA will not be the three seed. LA's most dangerous opponent is Seattle.

 

[Battlelyon]

You need to change your title to "Rams 11-3"

I actually did, but for some reason it didn't save

 

[Battlelyon]

Are you still enjoying peaking early in October?

As long as we start peaking again in January, than I'm good

 

[Hank Kingsley]

As long as we start peaking again in January, than I'm good

Keep the faith.