Who will cover the Rams?

Discuss any and all NFL-related topics and matters of interest here. RATING: PG-13
Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:40 pm
  • Thread Killer wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:I can't speak for the Seahawk matchups....but they tied the 49ers in the first matchup with great play from Steven Jackson and Danny Amendola (both no longer on the team) and in the Game where Alex Smith got hurt. Kudos to them on that one...they played well on O and beat a QB in his first extended game action. Additionally, the 49ers have had trouble with big, bruising backs (see Lynch, Marshawn, Peterson, Adrian, and Jackson, Steven). In the second matchup the Rams couldn't do ANYTHING on O. The Rams O scored a grand total of 3 points in regulation. The other 10 were on a safety that was incorrectly called on Kaep (the ball DID cross the LOS out of bounds...which counts) and an unforced error on a pitch to Ginn and a less than steller effort from Ginn to recover the fumble (plus a 2 point conversion).

    To act like somehow the Rams dominated the 49ers last year is less than honest. I think the Seattle loss doesn't mean all people think it means...but at least that was a dominant win by Seattle and not a game in which the other team effectively handed them the game.


    Seems that someone has forgotten that football is a game of offense, defense, and special teams where the team with the most points wins. It doesn't matter if the offense could only score 3 points in regulation if the other units are doing their jobs and the team has more points at the end of the game. Even in the imaginary world where all 49ers errors are unforced and apparently players get hurt on there own.

    Not that any of this matters for 2013 games, but Steven Jackson averaged only 3.5 yards per carry with 29 carries for 101 yards in that 1st game. His backup and probably the 2013 Rams starter averaged 8.3 yards per carry on 7 carries for 58 yards. BTW, Jackson averaged 2.3 yards per carry (21 for 48) in the Rams victory during the 2nd game.

    Danny Amendola was huge in the tie game, but didn't play in the Rams victory vs. the 49ers. Just one of the 20 or so games he's missed the past couple of seasons.

    Both players could have been re-signed if the Rams really wanted or deemed they needed them. In fact, the team let Jackson out of his contract. Seems the organization (the guys with all the info) didn't think as highly of them as you do.


    Wait...ALL phases of the game count? GASP!!

    Thanks Sherlock.

    The Rams won the game. Good for them. My point was that I don't think you can count on Kaepernick getting called for a Phantom Safety or pitching to nobody again. Those were mistakes by Kaepernick (and the refs) and aren't likely to be repeated. Can the Rams beat the 49ers? Sure they can. Any team can beat any other team....but I have seen too many Rams fans pound their chests over 2 pretty pathetic games for both teams. Those games were IMO the exception, not the rule.

    It amazes me how much confidence you Rams fans have.

    As for Jackson and Amendola....clearly I was talking about the tie because I have already stated they could do NOTHING in the second matchup.

    I guess its all good tho. Pound your chest about a bogus safety and an errant pitch. Wow. Rams really blow the Niners doors off on those plays. Gratz!!!
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2531
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:02 am
  • Marvin49 wrote:I can't speak for the Seahawk matchups....but they tied the 49ers in the first matchup with great play from Steven Jackson and Danny Amendola (both no longer on the team) and in the Game where Alex Smith got hurt. Kudos to them on that one...they played well on O and beat a QB in his first extended game action. Additionally, the 49ers have had trouble with big, bruising backs (see Lynch, Marshawn, Peterson, Adrian, and Jackson, Steven). In the second matchup the Rams couldn't do ANYTHING on O. The Rams O scored a grand total of 3 points in regulation. The other 10 were on a safety that was incorrectly called on Kaep (the ball DID cross the LOS out of bounds...which counts) and an unforced error on a pitch to Ginn and a less than steller effort from Ginn to recover the fumble (plus a 2 point conversion).

    To act like somehow the Rams dominated the 49ers last year is less than honest. I think the Seattle loss doesn't mean all people think it means...but at least that was a dominant win by Seattle and not a game in which the other team effectively handed them the game.


    Yes, the Rams won with their D. This season that D is back and improved. They are also bringing the Fastest Show On Turf on O.

    So, your story next season should be even more interesting.
    FSOT- Fastest Show On Turf - 2013 RAMS
    Image
    User avatar
    RamzFanz
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 134
    Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 3:18 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:15 am
  • Marvin49 wrote:
    OMG...the delusion from St. Louis is insane.

    Listen here....what was your schedule outside the division last year? The only reason you had a good divisional record is largely attributed to miracles and inexerienced QBs. Guess what? Those QBs aren't inexperienced this year. Wilson has a full year under his belt. Kaep has 10 games and played on the biggest stage. Palmer is a HUGE upgrade in Arizona regardless of his age.

    Good luck going .500 this year. You're best 2 offensive players walked out the door. You're new miracle worker rookie is 5'8" and 170 lbs and you have Alex Smith the Sequel at QB.


    That was last season. That O is gone.

    SJ39 and Amendola have not only been replaced, they've been improved upon.

    The Rams D is back and even better.

    They are exploding with talent this season.

    The Seahawks have the best secondary in the league. The Rams have the best front 7. It's going to be interesting.

    Good luck to the Hawks and remember kids, you're never too young to hate the Niners.
    FSOT- Fastest Show On Turf - 2013 RAMS
    Image
    User avatar
    RamzFanz
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 134
    Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 3:18 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:22 am
  • Marvin49 wrote:OK....

    I know some of us Niner fans can be annoying to you guys...

    ...but these Rams fans take it to a whole new level.

    I RESPOND to posts by Seattle fans. I don't START posts that are Niner related and I don't post completely asanine comments about how you can't stop the Rams receivers with the best secondary in the NFL.

    How do you stop them? You Jam them at the line with 6'3" and 6'4" cornerbacks and cover the slot reciever with one of the best CBs in the game over the last several years. A better question is how to the Rams receivers walk out of that game upright with no support from the run game.


    OMG, a Niner fan claiming the high ground! :34853_doh: :177692:

    You can't jam what you can't catch. You cover the slot with your best CB, how do you cover one of the fastest WR, RB and TE in the league?

    Anyway, there is no answer. The Rams are going to sweep the NFCW this season. At least, unlike the Cards in game one, by game four the Niners will see it coming.
    FSOT- Fastest Show On Turf - 2013 RAMS
    Image
    User avatar
    RamzFanz
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 134
    Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 3:18 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:29 am
  • LawlessHawk wrote:Rams ain't gonna beat the Hawks.... but, by god, we're rooting for them to do the niners again this season.

    (a couple unbelievable 60 yard FGs and a desperate trick play, still makes me laugh and shake my head.)


    ..and the Rams still have Legatron and Shotty so the 60 yard field goals and trick plays are not going away. The bad news is the Rams have an even better D and a whole new O that is going to shock the NFCW. I know no one will acknowledge what they have done, but it's going to be impressive.

    The games with Seattle will be defensive wars though.

    Good luck to the Hawks and remember kids, you're never too young to hate the Niners.
    FSOT- Fastest Show On Turf - 2013 RAMS
    Image
    User avatar
    RamzFanz
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 134
    Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 3:18 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:57 am
  • I won't worry about the Rams until and if Bradford actually shows something. Until then? 7-9/8-8 looks about right.
    43-8...it's all about that action boss....
    next man up.
    User avatar
    MizzouHawkGal
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6345
    Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:46 pm
    Location: Kansas City, MO


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:47 am
  • Marvin49 wrote:
    Thread Killer wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:I can't speak for the Seahawk matchups....but they tied the 49ers in the first matchup with great play from Steven Jackson and Danny Amendola (both no longer on the team) and in the Game where Alex Smith got hurt. Kudos to them on that one...they played well on O and beat a QB in his first extended game action. Additionally, the 49ers have had trouble with big, bruising backs (see Lynch, Marshawn, Peterson, Adrian, and Jackson, Steven). In the second matchup the Rams couldn't do ANYTHING on O. The Rams O scored a grand total of 3 points in regulation. The other 10 were on a safety that was incorrectly called on Kaep (the ball DID cross the LOS out of bounds...which counts) and an unforced error on a pitch to Ginn and a less than steller effort from Ginn to recover the fumble (plus a 2 point conversion).

    To act like somehow the Rams dominated the 49ers last year is less than honest. I think the Seattle loss doesn't mean all people think it means...but at least that was a dominant win by Seattle and not a game in which the other team effectively handed them the game.


    Seems that someone has forgotten that football is a game of offense, defense, and special teams where the team with the most points wins. It doesn't matter if the offense could only score 3 points in regulation if the other units are doing their jobs and the team has more points at the end of the game. Even in the imaginary world where all 49ers errors are unforced and apparently players get hurt on there own.

    Not that any of this matters for 2013 games, but Steven Jackson averaged only 3.5 yards per carry with 29 carries for 101 yards in that 1st game. His backup and probably the 2013 Rams starter averaged 8.3 yards per carry on 7 carries for 58 yards. BTW, Jackson averaged 2.3 yards per carry (21 for 48) in the Rams victory during the 2nd game.

    Danny Amendola was huge in the tie game, but didn't play in the Rams victory vs. the 49ers. Just one of the 20 or so games he's missed the past couple of seasons.

    Both players could have been re-signed if the Rams really wanted or deemed they needed them. In fact, the team let Jackson out of his contract. Seems the organization (the guys with all the info) didn't think as highly of them as you do.


    Wait...ALL phases of the game count? GASP!!

    Thanks Sherlock.

    The Rams won the game. Good for them. My point was that I don't think you can count on Kaepernick getting called for a Phantom Safety or pitching to nobody again. Those were mistakes by Kaepernick (and the refs) and aren't likely to be repeated. Can the Rams beat the 49ers? Sure they can. Any team can beat any other team....but I have seen too many Rams fans pound their chests over 2 pretty pathetic games for both teams. Those games were IMO the exception, not the rule.

    It amazes me how much confidence you Rams fans have.

    As for Jackson and Amendola....clearly I was talking about the tie because I have already stated they could do NOTHING in the second matchup.

    I guess its all good tho. Pound your chest about a bogus safety and an errant pitch. Wow. Rams really blow the Niners doors off on those plays. Gratz!!!


    Seemed like a good lesson to bring up for someone who seems to blindly believes that 49ers players can't be forced into mistakes and wants to point out how many points were scored by an offense in a particular game last year while ignoring the other phases of the game.

    And no one is pounding their chest about any particular play in either game. You ignorantly keep bringing up the same things as if they were the only two plays in the entire game in which the Rams came out on top. 49ers score more points against the defense or on special teams and they win. But, they didn't. So they loss. It burns you up so you resort to the well....uh...if my team's player didn't do this or that nonsense as if what happened was done irregardless to the opposing team's efforts.

    Let me give you an example of an unforced error. Brandon Gibson (another former Rams player) lines up wrong nullifying Amendola long pass play in overtime that probably helps win the tie game via a chip shot FG. That's an unforced error.

    As for Jackson and Amendola your point falls on death ears. Why? Because of the two, Amendola was the only player to have a good game (again didn't play in game two). And Jackson didn't have a strong performances in either game which totally contradicts your 49ers issues with bruising backs theory when it comes to the Rams. At worst there was no issue in game two.

    BTW, it doesn't amaze me one bit how much chutzpah some 49ers fans can have such as yourself.
    Thread Killer
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 33
    Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:14 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:56 am
  • Sorry Marvin but your getting taken to school here. Maybe you should quit before he takes your lunch money too.
    The Lion has no interest in the opinion of the sheep.
    RichNhansom
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2902
    Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 7:26 am


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Wed Aug 14, 2013 7:05 am
  • Marvin49 wrote:OK....

    I know some of us Niner fans can be annoying to you guys...

    ...but these Rams fans take it to a whole new level.

    I RESPOND to posts by Seattle fans. I don't START posts that are Niner related and I don't post completely asanine comments about how you can't stop the Rams receivers with the best secondary in the NFL.

    How do you stop them? You Jam them at the line with 6'3" and 6'4" cornerbacks and cover the slot reciever with one of the best CBs in the game over the last several years. A better question is how to the Rams receivers walk out of that game upright with no support from the run game.


    The difference is the Niner trolls have already been banned. It's not like we haven't had ourr fair share (being extremely polite here) of moronic Niner fans that are as bad or worse.

    Personally I am enjoying the exchange between the two fan bases and the biggest difference I see is one fan base makes alot more excuses and dismisses legitimate issues, than the other.
    The Lion has no interest in the opinion of the sheep.
    RichNhansom
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2902
    Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 7:26 am


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Wed Aug 14, 2013 8:28 am
  • RamzFanz wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    OMG...the delusion from St. Louis is insane.

    Listen here....what was your schedule outside the division last year? The only reason you had a good divisional record is largely attributed to miracles and inexerienced QBs. Guess what? Those QBs aren't inexperienced this year. Wilson has a full year under his belt. Kaep has 10 games and played on the biggest stage. Palmer is a HUGE upgrade in Arizona regardless of his age.

    Good luck going .500 this year. You're best 2 offensive players walked out the door. You're new miracle worker rookie is 5'8" and 170 lbs and you have Alex Smith the Sequel at QB.


    That was last season. That O is gone.

    SJ39 and Amendola have not only been replaced, they've been improved upon.

    The Rams D is back and even better.

    They are exploding with talent this season.

    The Seahawks have the best secondary in the league. The Rams have the best front 7. It's going to be interesting.

    Good luck to the Hawks and remember kids, you're never too young to hate the Niners.


    You lost all credibility on that one.

    Do you seriously believe that your front 7 is better than Aldon Smith, Patrick Willis, Navorro Bowman, Ahmad Brooks, Justin Smith, Ray McDonald and Ian Williams/Glenn Dorsey (Ian has been the surprise of camp and Dorsey looks good...BOTH improvements thus far over Isaac Sopoaga)?

    Dream on.

    At least you aren't as delusional as other Rams fans I've seen who call thier secondary the best in the NFL.

    O improved upon? I call BS in a big way. Does Austin look dynamic? Sure. How often tho do 5'8" 170lb WRS light it up in the NFL as rookies? Jackson has been your best player for a decade. Did Richardson have a higher average per carry last year than Jackson? Sure...but I'm pretty sure that he's gonna feel how much harder it is to be THE guy now that Jackson is gone.

    Bradford? Please. The guy is Alex Smith part 2. I know all about that one.

    So please...at least finish over .500 before trying to start something. It's really hollow. If you guys have a good year, then you can get some props just as the Niners and Seahawks have done in recent years.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2531
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Wed Aug 14, 2013 8:30 am
  • RamzFanz wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:OK....

    I know some of us Niner fans can be annoying to you guys...

    ...but these Rams fans take it to a whole new level.

    I RESPOND to posts by Seattle fans. I don't START posts that are Niner related and I don't post completely asanine comments about how you can't stop the Rams receivers with the best secondary in the NFL.

    How do you stop them? You Jam them at the line with 6'3" and 6'4" cornerbacks and cover the slot reciever with one of the best CBs in the game over the last several years. A better question is how to the Rams receivers walk out of that game upright with no support from the run game.


    OMG, a Niner fan claiming the high ground! :34853_doh: :177692:

    You can't jam what you can't catch. You cover the slot with your best CB, how do you cover one of the fastest WR, RB and TE in the league?

    Anyway, there is no answer. The Rams are going to sweep the NFCW this season. At least, unlike the Cards in game one, by game four the Niners will see it coming.


    uh...last time I checked the WR has to run PAST the CB....so you don't need to CATCH someone to Jam them.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2531
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Wed Aug 14, 2013 9:05 am
  • Lol he expects Sherman, Browner, and Winfield to give cushions, cute.
    Image
    3elieve
    User avatar
    Throwdown
    * NET Baller *
     
    Posts: 18797
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Graham, WA


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Wed Aug 14, 2013 9:15 am
  • Thread Killer wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    Thread Killer wrote:
    Seems that someone has forgotten that football is a game of offense, defense, and special teams where the team with the most points wins. It doesn't matter if the offense could only score 3 points in regulation if the other units are doing their jobs and the team has more points at the end of the game. Even in the imaginary world where all 49ers errors are unforced and apparently players get hurt on there own.

    Not that any of this matters for 2013 games, but Steven Jackson averaged only 3.5 yards per carry with 29 carries for 101 yards in that 1st game. His backup and probably the 2013 Rams starter averaged 8.3 yards per carry on 7 carries for 58 yards. BTW, Jackson averaged 2.3 yards per carry (21 for 48) in the Rams victory during the 2nd game.

    Danny Amendola was huge in the tie game, but didn't play in the Rams victory vs. the 49ers. Just one of the 20 or so games he's missed the past couple of seasons.

    Both players could have been re-signed if the Rams really wanted or deemed they needed them. In fact, the team let Jackson out of his contract. Seems the organization (the guys with all the info) didn't think as highly of them as you do.


    Wait...ALL phases of the game count? GASP!!

    Thanks Sherlock.

    The Rams won the game. Good for them. My point was that I don't think you can count on Kaepernick getting called for a Phantom Safety or pitching to nobody again. Those were mistakes by Kaepernick (and the refs) and aren't likely to be repeated. Can the Rams beat the 49ers? Sure they can. Any team can beat any other team....but I have seen too many Rams fans pound their chests over 2 pretty pathetic games for both teams. Those games were IMO the exception, not the rule.

    It amazes me how much confidence you Rams fans have.

    As for Jackson and Amendola....clearly I was talking about the tie because I have already stated they could do NOTHING in the second matchup.

    I guess its all good tho. Pound your chest about a bogus safety and an errant pitch. Wow. Rams really blow the Niners doors off on those plays. Gratz!!!


    Seemed like a good lesson to bring up for someone who seems to blindly believes that 49ers players can't be forced into mistakes and wants to point out how many points were scored by an offense in a particular game last year while ignoring the other phases of the game.

    And no one is pounding their chest about any particular play in either game. You ignorantly keep bringing up the same things as if they were the only two plays in the entire game in which the Rams came out on top. 49ers score more points against the defense or on special teams and they win. But, they didn't. So they loss. It burns you up so you resort to the well....uh...if my team's player didn't do this or that nonsense as if what happened was done irregardless to the opposing team's efforts.

    Let me give you an example of an unforced error. Brandon Gibson (another former Rams player) lines up wrong nullifying Amendola long pass play in overtime that probably helps win the tie game via a chip shot FG. That's an unforced error.

    As for Jackson and Amendola your point falls on death ears. Why? Because of the two, Amendola was the only player to have a good game (again didn't play in game two). And Jackson didn't have a strong performances in either game which totally contradicts your 49ers issues with bruising backs theory when it comes to the Rams. At worst there was no issue in game two.

    BTW, it doesn't amaze me one bit how much chutzpah some 49ers fans can have such as yourself.


    Wow. You really had to work hard to miss my point so entirely.

    The Rams won the game. No excuses. Fair and square. My point was never to say the Rams didn't win or shouldn't have won. My point was to say that it isn't a repeatable formula to expect the refs to screw up and for a young QB to make the biggest bonehead play of his career. The Rams won the game, but the fact remains that it was an incorrect call on the safety and the pitch is something we will likely never see again. Cudos to Janoris Jenkins for being Johnny on the spot and trying much harder to get the ball than Ginn did. It doesn't burn me up at all because the 49ers advanced to the Super Bowl while the Rams continued to wallow in mediocrity. What cracks me up the most tho is how this team that is "so talented" and finished 4-1-1 in the NFC West was only 3-7 outside it. The NFC West featured 2 very young QBs (Wilson and Kaep), a relatively young QB (Bradford) and essentially no QB at all (Arizona). The Rams do have a good young D, but they won't be facing those three young QBs this year. They will be facing 2 much more seasoned QBs with much more command of their offenses and Carson Palmer. Good luck repeating that in the division record this year.

    As for your comments about Jackson/Amendola, I think the thing you are missing here is CONTEXT. Did Jackson put up 200 yards? No. He did tho plug along on 29 carries, move the chains, run for 101 yards and score a TD. Against the 49ers run D, THATS SOMETHING. The 49ers finished #4 in run D last year. In 2011 they were #1 vs the run. In the past 2 years they have allowed a grand total of 10 TDs on the ground. To put that into perspective, the Rams allowed 18 LAST YEAR and that was around the middle of the pack. So no, Jackson didn't have a game for the ages, but IN CONTEXT, it was a big game. Same with Lynch and same with Peterson. I also happen to think that the Packers saw this trend and may be one of the reasons they selected Eddie Lacy and also a factor in the Falcons signing Jackson. The 49ers are a fantastic D with the best front 7 in the NFL, but it is FACT that they struggle more with bigger RBs pushing the pile. You won't run past Willis and Bowman on a consistant basis, but bigger backs can push them back. Richardson? Nice change of pace on those 7 carries after having to stop the hammer 29 times. Richardson had a good game that day...tho alot of that average was due to one long run. In the second meeting tho as the Niners were able to shut down Jackson, they held Richardson to a grand total of 6 yards on 3 carries. World beater that one.

    Amendola? You said it yourself. He should have won the game. He shredded the 49ers in the tie...and he isn't around anymore. Austin is a rookie. I've seen to many rookie WRs fail in a big way to have any fear about that guy. We'll see if he can beat press coverage...and I have my doubts at his size.
    Last edited by Marvin49 on Wed Aug 14, 2013 9:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2531
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Wed Aug 14, 2013 9:17 am
  • RichNhansom wrote:Sorry Marvin but your getting taken to school here. Maybe you should quit before he takes your lunch money too.


    We'll agree to disagree. :)
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2531
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Wed Aug 14, 2013 9:19 am
  • RichNhansom wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:OK....

    I know some of us Niner fans can be annoying to you guys...

    ...but these Rams fans take it to a whole new level.

    I RESPOND to posts by Seattle fans. I don't START posts that are Niner related and I don't post completely asanine comments about how you can't stop the Rams receivers with the best secondary in the NFL.

    How do you stop them? You Jam them at the line with 6'3" and 6'4" cornerbacks and cover the slot reciever with one of the best CBs in the game over the last several years. A better question is how to the Rams receivers walk out of that game upright with no support from the run game.


    The difference is the Niner trolls have already been banned. It's not like we haven't had ourr fair share (being extremely polite here) of moronic Niner fans that are as bad or worse.

    Personally I am enjoying the exchange between the two fan bases and the biggest difference I see is one fan base makes alot more excuses and dismisses legitimate issues, than the other.


    I can see where you get that...but in the past few days I've read how the Rams are now going to sweep the NFC West, own the best secondary in the NFL, own the best front 7 in the NFL, and have improved upon 2 of their best offensive players last year.

    I can see where you are coming from after reading how Niner fans think Goldson wasn't as big a loss as advertised, but I haven't seen anything nearly as delusional as what I'm reading from these Rams fans. :D
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2531
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Wed Aug 14, 2013 9:27 am
  • Yeah, we all know that speed is what is most important for a wide receiver, which is why Darrius Heyward-Bey turned out to have a way better career than Michael Crabtree.
    "He's a *****. It's not that he was a *****, he is a *****, and that's why he hasn't won anything."
    User avatar
    Smelly McUgly
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3504
    Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:30 pm
    Location: God's Country AKA Cascadia AKA The Pacific Northwest


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Wed Aug 14, 2013 9:29 am
  • Smelly McUgly wrote:Yeah, we all know that speed is what is most important for a wide receiver, which is why Darrius Heyward-Bey turned out to have a way better career than Michael Crabtree.


    This.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2531
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Wed Aug 14, 2013 9:31 am
  • I'd take every 49er starter or Seattle starter over any Rams starter position by position, only exception is at kicker but the Rams kicker went into a slump around mid season so meh.

    Overall, sure the Rams have talent now, but look at the Niners O-line and front 7, not one player I'd take over the Rams. I would think about taking Long at DE but Aldon Smith isn't that much of a lesser option, arguably Smith could be a better player.

    Compared to Seattle, who is a better player? I'd rather have Seattle's Defense that allowed the least amount of points than a D that racket up the sacks.

    On O, Gore or Lynch over Pead or Richardson, I actually would take Arizona's Carson Palmer over Bradford at this stage of the game as well.

    I think the Rams have potential but it may be a while until it comes together for them.
    Last edited by 12th_Bob on Wed Aug 14, 2013 9:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
    NFL, all your Owlz are belong to us!
    User avatar
    12th_Bob
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1745
    Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 7:56 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Wed Aug 14, 2013 9:38 am
  • 12th_Bob wrote:I'd take every 49er starter or Seattle starter over any Rams starter position by position, only exception is at kicker but the Ram's kicker went into a slump around mid season so meh.

    Overall, sure the Rams have talent now, but look at the Niners O-line and front 7, not one player I'd take over the Rams. I would think about taking Long at DE but Aldon Smith isn't that much of a lesser option, arguably Smith could be a better player.

    Compared to Seattle, who is a better player? I'd rather have Seattle's Defense that allowed the least amount of points than a D that racket up the sacks.

    On O, Gore or Lynch over Pead or Richardson, I actually would take Arizona's Carson Palmer over Bradford at this stage of the game as well.

    I think the Rams have potential but it may be a while until it comes together for them.


    To me thats Apples and Oranges. Long has 42 sacks in his 5 year career with a career best 13 in 2011. Smith has 33.5 in only 2 years and his career WORST so far is 14...which he got as a non-starting rookie.

    Long tho is more of a classic DE and is a more disruptive player vs the run.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2531
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Wed Aug 14, 2013 9:42 am
  • Marvin49 wrote:
    12th_Bob wrote:I'd take every 49er starter or Seattle starter over any Rams starter position by position, only exception is at kicker but the Ram's kicker went into a slump around mid season so meh.

    Overall, sure the Rams have talent now, but look at the Niners O-line and front 7, not one player I'd take over the Rams. I would think about taking Long at DE but Aldon Smith isn't that much of a lesser option, arguably Smith could be a better player.

    Compared to Seattle, who is a better player? I'd rather have Seattle's Defense that allowed the least amount of points than a D that racket up the sacks.

    On O, Gore or Lynch over Pead or Richardson, I actually would take Arizona's Carson Palmer over Bradford at this stage of the game as well.

    I think the Rams have potential but it may be a while until it comes together for them.


    To me thats Apples and Oranges. Long has 42 sacks in his 5 year career with a career best 13 in 2011. Smith has 33.5 in only 2 years and his career WORST so far is 14...which he got as a non-starting rookie.

    Long tho is more of a classic DE and is a more disruptive player vs the run.


    I understand that, I'm just looking at it from purely a production standpoint. Our team uses both classic DE's like Scruggs in addition to Bryant and Irvin so either could fit into Seattle's front 7.
    NFL, all your Owlz are belong to us!
    User avatar
    12th_Bob
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1745
    Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 7:56 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Wed Aug 14, 2013 9:48 am
  • 12th_Bob wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    12th_Bob wrote:I'd take every 49er starter or Seattle starter over any Rams starter position by position, only exception is at kicker but the Ram's kicker went into a slump around mid season so meh.

    Overall, sure the Rams have talent now, but look at the Niners O-line and front 7, not one player I'd take over the Rams. I would think about taking Long at DE but Aldon Smith isn't that much of a lesser option, arguably Smith could be a better player.

    Compared to Seattle, who is a better player? I'd rather have Seattle's Defense that allowed the least amount of points than a D that racket up the sacks.

    On O, Gore or Lynch over Pead or Richardson, I actually would take Arizona's Carson Palmer over Bradford at this stage of the game as well.

    I think the Rams have potential but it may be a while until it comes together for them.


    To me thats Apples and Oranges. Long has 42 sacks in his 5 year career with a career best 13 in 2011. Smith has 33.5 in only 2 years and his career WORST so far is 14...which he got as a non-starting rookie.

    Long tho is more of a classic DE and is a more disruptive player vs the run.


    I understand that, I'm just looking at it from purely a production standpoint. Our team uses both classic DE's like Scruggs in addition to Bryant and Irvin so either could fit into Seattle's front 7.


    Aldon actually played DE and even DT at times in college (he converted to OLB), but I get your point. Long has proven he can play every down with his hand in the dirt on the pro level.

    Obviously I think it's no contest, but if you are running a 4-3 D I can see how you could get there.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2531
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:12 pm
  • Marvin49 wrote:Wow. You really had to work hard to miss my point so entirely.

    The Rams won the game. No excuses. Fair and square. My point was never to say the Rams didn't win or shouldn't have won. My point was to say that it isn't a repeatable formula to expect the refs to screw up and for a young QB to make the biggest bonehead play of his career. The Rams won the game, but the fact remains that it was an incorrect call on the safety and the pitch is something we will likely never see again. Cudos to Janoris Jenkins for being Johnny on the spot and trying much harder to get the ball than Ginn did. It doesn't burn me up at all because the 49ers advanced to the Super Bowl while the Rams continued to wallow in mediocrity. What cracks me up the most tho is how this team that is "so talented" and finished 4-1-1 in the NFC West was only 3-7 outside it. The NFC West featured 2 very young QBs (Wilson and Kaep), a relatively young QB (Bradford) and essentially no QB at all (Arizona). The Rams do have a good young D, but they won't be facing those three young QBs this year. They will be facing 2 much more seasoned QBs with much more command of their offenses and Carson Palmer. Good luck repeating that in the division record this year.

    As for your comments about Jackson/Amendola, I think the thing you are missing here is CONTEXT. Did Jackson put up 200 yards? No. He did tho plug along on 29 carries, move the chains, run for 101 yards and score a TD. Against the 49ers run D, THATS SOMETHING. The 49ers finished #4 in run D last year. In 2011 they were #1 vs the run. In the past 2 years they have allowed a grand total of 10 TDs on the ground. To put that into perspective, the Rams allowed 18 LAST YEAR and that was around the middle of the pack. So no, Jackson didn't have a game for the ages, but IN CONTEXT, it was a big game. Same with Lynch and same with Peterson. I also happen to think that the Packers saw this trend and may be one of the reasons they selected Eddie Lacy and also a factor in the Falcons signing Jackson. The 49ers are a fantastic D with the best front 7 in the NFL, but it is FACT that they struggle more with bigger RBs pushing the pile. You won't run past Willis and Bowman on a consistant basis, but bigger backs can push them back. Richardson? Nice change of pace on those 7 carries after having to stop the hammer 29 times. Richardson had a good game that day...tho alot of that average was due to one long run. In the second meeting tho as the Niners were able to shut down Jackson, they held Richardson to a grand total of 6 yards on 3 carries. World beater that one.

    Amendola? You said it yourself. He should have won the game. He shredded the 49ers in the tie...and he isn't around anymore. Austin is a rookie. I've seen to many rookie WRs fail in a big way to have any fear about that guy. We'll see if he can beat press coverage...and I have my doubts at his size.


    Oh please. You are so full of it. To post that the Rams won the game and say no excuses, only to follow that up with the same excuses you call facts, and have repeated ad nauseam is disingenuous. Of course, chances are pretty good the same exact circumstances probably aren't going to happen this year. They didn't even happen in the first game where they tied. Gee what a point. Duh.

    And sure, Wilson and Kaepernick were young QBs who could improve and have more command of their offenses. But, so could Sam Bradford while playing with some new weapons in the same offense for a 2nd year in a row and behind a potentially decent OLine for the first time in his NFL career. Or even the defense playing in it's 2nd season in the same scheme. Oops Sorry. That's not allowed. Bradford and the rest of the team can't improve. Only Wilson and Kaepernick or other non-Rams.

    Back to Jackson and Amendola. I don't and my guess is that most wouldn't consider 3.5 ypc on 29 carries for 101 yards in FIVE (not FOUR) BUT FIVE COMPLETE QUARTERS a great game like YOU stated earlier. How's that for context? And Richardson didn't get his yards AFTER Jackson's 29 carries. Shoot, the carry where he got most of his yards that you mention was the team's 5th or 6th rushing play in the entire game. His performance in game two? Hard to explain. Could be the rookie wall given he did next to nothing for the rest of the season too. See, it wasn't just the 49ers vaunted defense.

    And no I didn't say that Amendola should have won that game. Those are your words. Amendola played a strong game as a part of the team concept in that tie game. The team could have won that game with his help. Just like the team won the second matchup without him on the field.

    BTW, while Tavon Austin is a rookie, he has speed AND quickness, of which few, if any, in the league have. Press coverage? Time will tell. One things for sure, if a defender misses, he's gone. But, my guess is the Rams aren't going to line him up on the line of scrimage at the snap all the time to face such coverage.
    Thread Killer
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 33
    Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:14 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:34 pm
  • Thread Killer wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:Wow. You really had to work hard to miss my point so entirely.

    The Rams won the game. No excuses. Fair and square. My point was never to say the Rams didn't win or shouldn't have won. My point was to say that it isn't a repeatable formula to expect the refs to screw up and for a young QB to make the biggest bonehead play of his career. The Rams won the game, but the fact remains that it was an incorrect call on the safety and the pitch is something we will likely never see again. Cudos to Janoris Jenkins for being Johnny on the spot and trying much harder to get the ball than Ginn did. It doesn't burn me up at all because the 49ers advanced to the Super Bowl while the Rams continued to wallow in mediocrity. What cracks me up the most tho is how this team that is "so talented" and finished 4-1-1 in the NFC West was only 3-7 outside it. The NFC West featured 2 very young QBs (Wilson and Kaep), a relatively young QB (Bradford) and essentially no QB at all (Arizona). The Rams do have a good young D, but they won't be facing those three young QBs this year. They will be facing 2 much more seasoned QBs with much more command of their offenses and Carson Palmer. Good luck repeating that in the division record this year.

    As for your comments about Jackson/Amendola, I think the thing you are missing here is CONTEXT. Did Jackson put up 200 yards? No. He did tho plug along on 29 carries, move the chains, run for 101 yards and score a TD. Against the 49ers run D, THATS SOMETHING. The 49ers finished #4 in run D last year. In 2011 they were #1 vs the run. In the past 2 years they have allowed a grand total of 10 TDs on the ground. To put that into perspective, the Rams allowed 18 LAST YEAR and that was around the middle of the pack. So no, Jackson didn't have a game for the ages, but IN CONTEXT, it was a big game. Same with Lynch and same with Peterson. I also happen to think that the Packers saw this trend and may be one of the reasons they selected Eddie Lacy and also a factor in the Falcons signing Jackson. The 49ers are a fantastic D with the best front 7 in the NFL, but it is FACT that they struggle more with bigger RBs pushing the pile. You won't run past Willis and Bowman on a consistant basis, but bigger backs can push them back. Richardson? Nice change of pace on those 7 carries after having to stop the hammer 29 times. Richardson had a good game that day...tho alot of that average was due to one long run. In the second meeting tho as the Niners were able to shut down Jackson, they held Richardson to a grand total of 6 yards on 3 carries. World beater that one.

    Amendola? You said it yourself. He should have won the game. He shredded the 49ers in the tie...and he isn't around anymore. Austin is a rookie. I've seen to many rookie WRs fail in a big way to have any fear about that guy. We'll see if he can beat press coverage...and I have my doubts at his size.


    Oh please. You are so full of it. To post that the Rams won the game and say no excuses, only to follow that up with the same excuses you call facts, and have repeated ad nauseam is disingenuous. Of course, chances are pretty good the same exact circumstances probably aren't going to happen this year. They didn't even happen in the first game where they tied. Gee what a point. Duh.

    And sure, Wilson and Kaepernick were young QBs who could improve and have more command of their offenses. But, so could Sam Bradford while playing with some new weapons in the same offense for a 2nd year in a row and behind a potentially decent OLine for the first time in his NFL career. Or even the defense playing in it's 2nd season in the same scheme. Oops Sorry. That's not allowed. Bradford and the rest of the team can't improve. Only Wilson and Kaepernick or other non-Rams.

    Back to Jackson and Amendola. I don't and my guess is that most wouldn't consider 3.5 ypc on 29 carries for 101 yards in FIVE (not FOUR) BUT FIVE COMPLETE QUARTERS a great game like YOU stated earlier. How's that for context? And Richardson didn't get his yards AFTER Jackson's 29 carries. Shoot, the carry where he got most of his yards that you mention was the team's 5th or 6th rushing play in the entire game. His performance in game two? Hard to explain. Could be the rookie wall given he did next to nothing for the rest of the season too. See, it wasn't just the 49ers vaunted defense.

    And no I didn't say that Amendola should have won that game. Those are your words. Amendola played a strong game as a part of the team concept in that tie game. The team could have won that game with his help. Just like the team won the second matchup without him on the field.

    BTW, while Tavon Austin is a rookie, he has speed AND quickness, of which few, if any, in the league have. Press coverage? Time will tell. One things for sure, if a defender misses, he's gone. But, my guess is the Rams aren't going to line him up on the line of scrimage at the snap all the time to face such coverage.


    Let me try this one more time...

    OK....Obviously, I'm not saying that the EXACT same game conditions won't take place. Thats totally obvious. My point is that there will likely not be any of the wacky odd-ball stuff that happened last year. Those were two odd-ball plays that had a huge effect on the game. The Rams played well all day on D to make it so that those plays had such a large effect on the game...so I'm not saying that the Rams don't deservethe win, I'm only saying that it was a pretty wacky scenario that let to the final score. Is that clear enough? I don't anticipate those scenarios happening on a regular basis. You may not like what I'm been saying "ad nauseam", but that doesn't make them any less true. Moreover, it was my ORIGINAL point which you have so clearly missed that I was trying to make when I pointed out those two plays to begin with. Its not like I was saying the niners should have won and then backtracked and used the same info to support it. It am using those plays because they support my ORIGINAL POINT...not the one you find easier to argue with.

    As for Jackson...we are just going in circles now. I remember watching the game and I remember him pushing the pile and I remember being frustrated by the 49ers inability to stop him from picking up first downs. I never said he had a game for the ages. I said in the context of what the 49ers typically allow, he had a good game. Not a great one...a good one. The 49ers allowed 94 yards per game last year and 70+ yards per game in 2011. That is TOTAL rush yards per game...not rush yards from one player. 101 yards and a TD is a good game. I'm sorry if you don't see it that way. Its a matter of opinion and that is mine.

    As for the 29 carry thing....Sigh. OBVIOUSLY it wasn't that all of Richardsons carries came at the end of the game. I was simply stating that the carries were peppered into Jacksons carries and he was a good "change of pace". Hit the D with the hammer several times and then hit them with speedier back can sometimes create big holes. Now please stop just parsing my words looking for a grammatical argument. I think it was clear what I meant.

    Jeez. Parsing my words again on Amendola. You were talking about a play that he made that was called back because of a formation error. That would just have been further evidense of Amendola tearing the Niners up that day.

    Good luck with that on Austin. He's a promising player, but how many 5'8", 170lb Pro Bowl WRs do you see? Before you answer, remember that Bradford is no Tom Brady. I've seen ALOT of quick, fast, smurf receivers come into the league and I've seldom seen them live up to the hype.

    Finally, while I realize you don't like what I have to say, that doesn't mean it ain't true. It seems to me that all you are doing is reading every paragraph looking to find the gramatical hole to exploit in order to create an "argument". At that point all you are are doing is arguing about arguing (like I just did right there).

    We'll find out in the coming months if I'm right. I for one tho am FAR, FAR less concerned with the Rams as I am with the Seahawks. I've watched the 49ers be that "talented" team for LONG periods of time before they fulfilled any of that promise. Don't be surprised if you have a wait ahead of you before you are relevant.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2531
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:55 pm
  • Marvin49 wrote:
    Thread Killer wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:Wow. You really had to work hard to miss my point so entirely.

    The Rams won the game. No excuses. Fair and square. My point was never to say the Rams didn't win or shouldn't have won. My point was to say that it isn't a repeatable formula to expect the refs to screw up and for a young QB to make the biggest bonehead play of his career. The Rams won the game, but the fact remains that it was an incorrect call on the safety and the pitch is something we will likely never see again. Cudos to Janoris Jenkins for being Johnny on the spot and trying much harder to get the ball than Ginn did. It doesn't burn me up at all because the 49ers advanced to the Super Bowl while the Rams continued to wallow in mediocrity. What cracks me up the most tho is how this team that is "so talented" and finished 4-1-1 in the NFC West was only 3-7 outside it. The NFC West featured 2 very young QBs (Wilson and Kaep), a relatively young QB (Bradford) and essentially no QB at all (Arizona). The Rams do have a good young D, but they won't be facing those three young QBs this year. They will be facing 2 much more seasoned QBs with much more command of their offenses and Carson Palmer. Good luck repeating that in the division record this year.

    As for your comments about Jackson/Amendola, I think the thing you are missing here is CONTEXT. Did Jackson put up 200 yards? No. He did tho plug along on 29 carries, move the chains, run for 101 yards and score a TD. Against the 49ers run D, THATS SOMETHING. The 49ers finished #4 in run D last year. In 2011 they were #1 vs the run. In the past 2 years they have allowed a grand total of 10 TDs on the ground. To put that into perspective, the Rams allowed 18 LAST YEAR and that was around the middle of the pack. So no, Jackson didn't have a game for the ages, but IN CONTEXT, it was a big game. Same with Lynch and same with Peterson. I also happen to think that the Packers saw this trend and may be one of the reasons they selected Eddie Lacy and also a factor in the Falcons signing Jackson. The 49ers are a fantastic D with the best front 7 in the NFL, but it is FACT that they struggle more with bigger RBs pushing the pile. You won't run past Willis and Bowman on a consistant basis, but bigger backs can push them back. Richardson? Nice change of pace on those 7 carries after having to stop the hammer 29 times. Richardson had a good game that day...tho alot of that average was due to one long run. In the second meeting tho as the Niners were able to shut down Jackson, they held Richardson to a grand total of 6 yards on 3 carries. World beater that one.

    Amendola? You said it yourself. He should have won the game. He shredded the 49ers in the tie...and he isn't around anymore. Austin is a rookie. I've seen to many rookie WRs fail in a big way to have any fear about that guy. We'll see if he can beat press coverage...and I have my doubts at his size.


    Oh please. You are so full of it. To post that the Rams won the game and say no excuses, only to follow that up with the same excuses you call facts, and have repeated ad nauseam is disingenuous. Of course, chances are pretty good the same exact circumstances probably aren't going to happen this year. They didn't even happen in the first game where they tied. Gee what a point. Duh.

    And sure, Wilson and Kaepernick were young QBs who could improve and have more command of their offenses. But, so could Sam Bradford while playing with some new weapons in the same offense for a 2nd year in a row and behind a potentially decent OLine for the first time in his NFL career. Or even the defense playing in it's 2nd season in the same scheme. Oops Sorry. That's not allowed. Bradford and the rest of the team can't improve. Only Wilson and Kaepernick or other non-Rams.

    Back to Jackson and Amendola. I don't and my guess is that most wouldn't consider 3.5 ypc on 29 carries for 101 yards in FIVE (not FOUR) BUT FIVE COMPLETE QUARTERS a great game like YOU stated earlier. How's that for context? And Richardson didn't get his yards AFTER Jackson's 29 carries. Shoot, the carry where he got most of his yards that you mention was the team's 5th or 6th rushing play in the entire game. His performance in game two? Hard to explain. Could be the rookie wall given he did next to nothing for the rest of the season too. See, it wasn't just the 49ers vaunted defense.

    And no I didn't say that Amendola should have won that game. Those are your words. Amendola played a strong game as a part of the team concept in that tie game. The team could have won that game with his help. Just like the team won the second matchup without him on the field.

    BTW, while Tavon Austin is a rookie, he has speed AND quickness, of which few, if any, in the league have. Press coverage? Time will tell. One things for sure, if a defender misses, he's gone. But, my guess is the Rams aren't going to line him up on the line of scrimage at the snap all the time to face such coverage.


    Let me try this one more time...

    OK....Obviously, I'm not saying that the EXACT same game conditions won't take place. Thats totally obvious. My point is that there will likely not be any of the wacky odd-ball stuff that happened last year. Those were two odd-ball plays that had a huge effect on the game. The Rams played well all day on D to make it so that those plays had such a large effect on the game...so I'm not saying that the Rams don't deservethe win, I'm only saying that it was a pretty wacky scenario that let to the final score. Is that clear enough? I don't anticipate those scenarios happening on a regular basis. You may not like what I'm been saying "ad nauseam", but that doesn't make them any less true. Moreover, it was my ORIGINAL point which you have so clearly missed that I was trying to make when I pointed out those two plays to begin with. Its not like I was saying the niners should have won and then backtracked and used the same info to support it. It am using those plays because they support my ORIGINAL POINT...not the one you find easier to argue with.

    As for Jackson...we are just going in circles now. I remember watching the game and I remember him pushing the pile and I remember being frustrated by the 49ers inability to stop him from picking up first downs. I never said he had a game for the ages. I said in the context of what the 49ers typically allow, he had a good game. Not a great one...a good one. The 49ers allowed 94 yards per game last year and 70+ yards per game in 2011. That is TOTAL rush yards per game...not rush yards from one player. 101 yards and a TD is a good game. I'm sorry if you don't see it that way. Its a matter of opinion and that is mine.

    As for the 29 carry thing....Sigh. OBVIOUSLY it wasn't that all of Richardsons carries came at the end of the game. I was simply stating that the carries were peppered into Jacksons carries and he was a good "change of pace". Hit the D with the hammer several times and then hit them with speedier back can sometimes create big holes. Now please stop just parsing my words looking for a grammatical argument. I think it was clear what I meant.

    Jeez. Parsing my words again on Amendola. You were talking about a play that he made that was called back because of a formation error. That would just have been further evidense of Amendola tearing the Niners up that day.

    Good luck with that on Austin. He's a promising player, but how many 5'8", 170lb Pro Bowl WRs do you see? Before you answer, remember that Bradford is no Tom Brady. I've seen ALOT of quick, fast, smurf receivers come into the league and I've seldom seen them live up to the hype.

    Finally, while I realize you don't like what I have to say, that doesn't mean it ain't true. It seems to me that all you are doing is reading every paragraph looking to find the gramatical hole to exploit in order to create an "argument". At that point all you are are doing is arguing about arguing (like I just did right there).

    We'll find out in the coming months if I'm right. I for one tho am FAR, FAR less concerned with the Rams as I am with the Seahawks. I've watched the 49ers be that "talented" team for LONG periods of time before they fulfilled any of that promise. Don't be surprised if you have a wait ahead of you before you are relevant.


    Ok. Let me try this one more time. Your so-called point and interpretation of the so-called wacky scenario is meaningless. Even if one went with your interpretation of events. Why? Because you don't attribute anything that happened to the opposing team on the field and seem to totally disregard the rest of the game.

    As far as Jackson. Aren't the 49ers defensive rushing averages you spout off via games where the rushing player/team have only 4 quarters of which to work, for the most part? Jackson got his 102 yards at 3.5 ypc in 5 Quarters. Take away the 4 carries for 16 yards in OT and you've got 25 regulation carries for 86 yards. You can't see the difference? Probably not, because all the 1st downs Jackson got that you remember must have increased substantially in your imagination. Why do I say this? He only had about 4 or 5 of the team's 27 freaking 1st downs in the ENTIRE game.

    And bTW, these are your words from earlier in the thread. Not mine:

    Marvin49 wrote: I can't speak for the Seahawk matchups....but they tied the 49ers in the first matchup with great play from Steven Jackson and Danny Amendola (both no longer on the team)


    Hence my responses. But, I'm glad that you've now backtracked (again) and now say:
    Marvin49 wrote:...he had a good game. Not a great one...a good one.


    Amendola? I said Amendola had a good first game in the tie when I pointed out that he didn't even play in the win. No ground breaking there.

    On Austin. I go with his combine numbers though I've read he's put on a little weight, but I can't recall too many 5'8 1/2, 174 lbs WRs (taller and heavier than you listed) in the NFL period. Just like I can't recall too many successful QBs Russell Wilson's size. Meaningless.

    And I could care less about a Pro Bowl. Amendola whom you seem to believe the Rams will miss so much never even made the Pro Bowl. Again meaningless. But, my question to you is how many WRs have you seen in the NFL with Austin's QUICKNESS AND SPEED. Most have one or the other. Very few, if any, have BOTH. And btw, his addition is not just about the offense, it's also about the special teams. A unit that hasn't had a good returner since the GSOT days with Hakim and Horne.

    Finally, I've not been looking for grammatical holes in your responses. I've just been calling you on the nonsense that you've spouted in an attempt to justify your views.

    As to what might happen this year? We don't know. The problem appears to be that it seems that I'm the only one smart enough to realize this as fact.
    Thread Killer
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 33
    Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:14 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Wed Aug 14, 2013 7:49 pm
  • Thread Killer wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    Thread Killer wrote:
    Oh please. You are so full of it. To post that the Rams won the game and say no excuses, only to follow that up with the same excuses you call facts, and have repeated ad nauseam is disingenuous. Of course, chances are pretty good the same exact circumstances probably aren't going to happen this year. They didn't even happen in the first game where they tied. Gee what a point. Duh.

    And sure, Wilson and Kaepernick were young QBs who could improve and have more command of their offenses. But, so could Sam Bradford while playing with some new weapons in the same offense for a 2nd year in a row and behind a potentially decent OLine for the first time in his NFL career. Or even the defense playing in it's 2nd season in the same scheme. Oops Sorry. That's not allowed. Bradford and the rest of the team can't improve. Only Wilson and Kaepernick or other non-Rams.

    Back to Jackson and Amendola. I don't and my guess is that most wouldn't consider 3.5 ypc on 29 carries for 101 yards in FIVE (not FOUR) BUT FIVE COMPLETE QUARTERS a great game like YOU stated earlier. How's that for context? And Richardson didn't get his yards AFTER Jackson's 29 carries. Shoot, the carry where he got most of his yards that you mention was the team's 5th or 6th rushing play in the entire game. His performance in game two? Hard to explain. Could be the rookie wall given he did next to nothing for the rest of the season too. See, it wasn't just the 49ers vaunted defense.

    And no I didn't say that Amendola should have won that game. Those are your words. Amendola played a strong game as a part of the team concept in that tie game. The team could have won that game with his help. Just like the team won the second matchup without him on the field.

    BTW, while Tavon Austin is a rookie, he has speed AND quickness, of which few, if any, in the league have. Press coverage? Time will tell. One things for sure, if a defender misses, he's gone. But, my guess is the Rams aren't going to line him up on the line of scrimage at the snap all the time to face such coverage.


    Let me try this one more time...

    OK....Obviously, I'm not saying that the EXACT same game conditions won't take place. Thats totally obvious. My point is that there will likely not be any of the wacky odd-ball stuff that happened last year. Those were two odd-ball plays that had a huge effect on the game. The Rams played well all day on D to make it so that those plays had such a large effect on the game...so I'm not saying that the Rams don't deservethe win, I'm only saying that it was a pretty wacky scenario that let to the final score. Is that clear enough? I don't anticipate those scenarios happening on a regular basis. You may not like what I'm been saying "ad nauseam", but that doesn't make them any less true. Moreover, it was my ORIGINAL point which you have so clearly missed that I was trying to make when I pointed out those two plays to begin with. Its not like I was saying the niners should have won and then backtracked and used the same info to support it. It am using those plays because they support my ORIGINAL POINT...not the one you find easier to argue with.

    As for Jackson...we are just going in circles now. I remember watching the game and I remember him pushing the pile and I remember being frustrated by the 49ers inability to stop him from picking up first downs. I never said he had a game for the ages. I said in the context of what the 49ers typically allow, he had a good game. Not a great one...a good one. The 49ers allowed 94 yards per game last year and 70+ yards per game in 2011. That is TOTAL rush yards per game...not rush yards from one player. 101 yards and a TD is a good game. I'm sorry if you don't see it that way. Its a matter of opinion and that is mine.

    As for the 29 carry thing....Sigh. OBVIOUSLY it wasn't that all of Richardsons carries came at the end of the game. I was simply stating that the carries were peppered into Jacksons carries and he was a good "change of pace". Hit the D with the hammer several times and then hit them with speedier back can sometimes create big holes. Now please stop just parsing my words looking for a grammatical argument. I think it was clear what I meant.

    Jeez. Parsing my words again on Amendola. You were talking about a play that he made that was called back because of a formation error. That would just have been further evidense of Amendola tearing the Niners up that day.

    Good luck with that on Austin. He's a promising player, but how many 5'8", 170lb Pro Bowl WRs do you see? Before you answer, remember that Bradford is no Tom Brady. I've seen ALOT of quick, fast, smurf receivers come into the league and I've seldom seen them live up to the hype.

    Finally, while I realize you don't like what I have to say, that doesn't mean it ain't true. It seems to me that all you are doing is reading every paragraph looking to find the gramatical hole to exploit in order to create an "argument". At that point all you are are doing is arguing about arguing (like I just did right there).

    We'll find out in the coming months if I'm right. I for one tho am FAR, FAR less concerned with the Rams as I am with the Seahawks. I've watched the 49ers be that "talented" team for LONG periods of time before they fulfilled any of that promise. Don't be surprised if you have a wait ahead of you before you are relevant.


    Ok. Let me try this one more time. Your so-called point and interpretation of the so-called wacky scenario is meaningless. Even if one went with your interpretation of events. Why? Because you don't attribute anything that happened to the opposing team on the field and seem to totally disregard the rest of the game.

    As far as Jackson. Aren't the 49ers defensive rushing averages you spout off via games where the rushing player/team have only 4 quarters of which to work, for the most part? Jackson got his 102 yards at 3.5 ypc in 5 Quarters. Take away the 4 carries for 16 yards in OT and you've got 25 regulation carries for 86 yards. You can't see the difference? Probably not, because all the 1st downs Jackson got that you remember must have increased substantially in your imagination. Why do I say this? He only had about 4 or 5 of the team's 27 freaking 1st downs in the ENTIRE game.

    And bTW, these are your words from earlier in the thread. Not mine:

    Marvin49 wrote: I can't speak for the Seahawk matchups....but they tied the 49ers in the first matchup with great play from Steven Jackson and Danny Amendola (both no longer on the team)


    Hence my responses. But, I'm glad that you've now backtracked (again) and now say:
    Marvin49 wrote:...he had a good game. Not a great one...a good one.


    Amendola? I said Amendola had a good first game in the tie when I pointed out that he didn't even play in the win. No ground breaking there.

    On Austin. I go with his combine numbers though I've read he's put on a little weight, but I can't recall too many 5'8 1/2, 174 lbs WRs (taller and heavier than you listed) in the NFL period. Just like I can't recall too many successful QBs Russell Wilson's size. Meaningless.

    And I could care less about a Pro Bowl. Amendola whom you seem to believe the Rams will miss so much never even made the Pro Bowl. Again meaningless. But, my question to you is how many WRs have you seen in the NFL with Austin's QUICKNESS AND SPEED. Most have one or the other. Very few, if any, have BOTH. And btw, his addition is not just about the offense, it's also about the special teams. A unit that hasn't had a good returner since the GSOT days with Hakim and Horne.

    Finally, I've not been looking for grammatical holes in your responses. I've just been calling you on the nonsense that you've spouted in an attempt to justify your views.

    As to what might happen this year? We don't know. The problem appears to be that it seems that I'm the only one smart enough to realize this as fact.


    Wow. It's like teaching math to a cat. You're just not going to get it.

    I gave the Rams credit for putting themselves in the position to win when those events occurred (mainly by playing good D). I said that the Rams DESERVED to win the game. I said there was no excuse for the 49er loss and gave credit for Jenkins effort on one of those plays. I can go even further and say that Kaep doesn't get the bogus penalty if the Rams don't chase him out of the pocket.

    Instead of taking all of that at face value, you'd rather argue with YOUR VERSION of what I'm saying. I'm done engaging in that conversation. It's pointless. You won't get what I'm saying because you choose not to and would rather argue in some attempt to be "right". Gratz. You win the internet. The Rams still suck and will finish no better than 3rd in the division, but hey, you spewed total nonsense on that internet board that one time.

    As for Jackson...just more word parsing. I'm tired of it. You know what I mean and you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Hell...they guy that is supposedly better than Jackson had 3 carries for 6 yards in the second meeting, so why does it even matter? I continue to think that losing Jackson will hurt and you think it won't. Only time will tell.

    Just for sh*ts and giggles tho, let assign some stats to the point I was trying to make....about CONTEXT. The stats below are the performances by the 49er opponent leading rushers in every game last season.

    Aaron Rodgers - 27 yards
    Kevin Smith - 53 yards
    Adrian Peterson - 86 yards
    Shonn Greene - 34 yards
    Brad Smith - 35 yards
    Ahmad Bradshaw - 116 yards
    Marshawn Lynch - 113 yards
    LaRod Stephens-Howling - 6 yards
    Steven Jackson - 101 yards, 1 TD
    Matt Forte - 63 yards
    Darren Sproles - 65 yards
    Steven Jackson - 48 yards
    Reggie Bush - 65 yards
    Danny Woodhead - 61 yards
    Marshawn Lynch - 111 yards, 1 TD
    William Powell - 53 yards

    Lets add the playoffs for fun.


    DuJuan Harris - 53 yards
    Jacquizz Rodgers - 32 yards
    Ray Rice - 59 yards


    As you can see, Jacksons yardage would be the 4th best performance against the Niners all year. If I just give him the 86 yards you are giving him from regulation then that is STILL tied for the 4th best performance...tied with the NFLs leading rusher BTW. Who were the backs who did the most damage? Marshawn Lynch (twice), Ahmad Bradshaw (not real big but a physical runner), Adrian Peterson and...wait for it....Steven Jackson. I don't know how else to state this. If you don't get it it's because you don't WANT to get it. You can't have the proper context unless you watched all 49er games last year. In 2011 BTW, they were EVEN BETTER vs. the run.

    On Austin....can he be the Russell Wilson type (player who defies the odds at his size)? Sure. What are the odds? Long. Talk about meaningless....its like every single time a skinny QB with no arm gets drafted and they say it worked for Montana. There was only one Montana. There is only one Russell Wilson. Is Austin that kind of player? Maybe...but I have my doubts. BTW..those 4 lbs and .5 inches should make all the difference. There is a REASON not too many of them make it. IMO he'll be a good slot player and kick returner...but not much else. He was the best of a lackluster WR class this year. Is he better than what they have? For sure. Would I like to have him in SF? Sure.....but lets let the guy catch ONE NFL pass before we make any claims about how good he's gonna be.

    BTW...below is a list of ALL of the 1st round WRs selected since 2000 that are sub 6 feet. Some of these players were top 10 picks. Note how many were good players and how many were total busts. Also note how much BIGGER they are than Austin.

    Kendall Wright - 5'10" 196lbs
    Percy Harvin - 5'11" 185lbs
    Ted Ginn - 5'11 185lbs
    Santonio Holmes - 5'11" 185lbs
    Mark Clayton - 5'10" 190lbs
    Santana Moss - 5'10" 190lbs
    Peter Warrick - 5'11" 195lbs
    R. Jay Soward - 5'11" 192

    To be clear since I know you are going to parse my words again...I am in no way saying Austin can't be a very good player. I'm saying that it is in no way a foregone conclusion. I really like the Niner draft this year with Reid, Carradine, McDonald, Lemonier, Patton and Lattimore in particular. All but Carradine and Lattimore have looked really good in camp and thats just because those 2 are still injured. I'm not posting here how great any of those players will be yet tho because we just won't know till the live bullets start firing.

    So far in this forum I've read that the Rams have the best secondary in the NFL (no, Seattle does), the best front 7 in the NFL (no, SF does), that the new WRs in St. Louis "can't be stopped" (Never thought I'd say this but looking forward to seeing Seattle pummel those WRs), and that the Rams will "sweep the NFC West". Big words for a team that hasn't been over .500 in a decade and only 4 times in the last 22 years.

    You are correct in one aspect. We'll know more in a few months. Can the Rams surprise me? Sure...anything is possible. I sure as hell tho wouldn't bank on it....not in this division.

    This will be my final post in response to you on this thread. I'm done.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2531
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:47 am
  • Marvin49,

    You were done long ago. RichNhansom broke it to you gently, but you still didn't get it.

    The issue? You've had a caveat with almost every positive statement you've made about the Rams. Most of which (positive statement) only came when challenged. If you said the Rams did well and deserved to win and left it at that, you wouldn't have heard a peep from me. But, in between backtracks, most everything positive has always been followed up by what the 49ers did wrong in those games and as if those errors were unforced. You get it now skippy?

    Rams will finish no better than 3rd in the division? Who knows? But, again between the two of us, it appears that I'm minus a crystal ball.

    Back to Jackson. Word parsing? You said something and backtracked a bit when challenged. Just like you backtracked in the other thread when you stated that Ginn didn't go after the fumble.

    And speaking of teaching math to a cat, how are you the teacher? For goodness sakes man, you have to take into account yards per carry. Ignorantly listing rushing yards of several players without that average is fruitless. Where is the CONTEXT in that? Chances are Joe Blow could have more yards than the next back if he has more carries. Duh.

    On Austin. Are you too dense to see that the same point you attempt to make regarding Russell Wilson can be made regarding your point on Tavon Austin?? And you made your claims on his impact and then followed that up asking to "let the guy catch ONE NFL pass before we make any claims about how good he's gonna be?" And in the same freaking paragraph. Can't you see the STUPIDITY? Well, obviously not. You've proven that throughout the entire thread.

    And I couldn't care less about what you read from other posters about the Rams. That's all meaningless in regards to this discussion. A discussion in which you've talked out of both sides of your neck and been called on it. Good day sir.
    Thread Killer
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 33
    Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:14 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Thu Aug 15, 2013 5:03 am
  • Austin wasn't the best receiver at WV. Stedman Bailey was (also drafted by the Rams) and what your ignoring about Austin is why you bring him in. It's not because you think he will have elite numbers it is because defenses cannot ignore him. It is a very large part of the reason Bailey had 1600 yards and 26 TD's his senior year alone and still wasn't considered a top draft prospect. It's what I refer to as the Harvin effect. Austin doesn't have to be a elite target to have a strong benefit to the offense.

    Also you were talking about one of your rookies (opposite the DT from KC) when referencing your front seven and you have also stated you believe you have the deepest roster in the NFL even though you believe letting Soap and RJF leave in FA equates to an upgrade, I can only assume through FA and the draft even though those are as big a mystery as Austin.

    You have downplayed losing an all pro safety and said Reid looks good in camp, dismissed Walker leaving because of drops last season while ignoring everything else he brings to your running game and was your second best TE and being replaced by a rookie and the list goes on. Maybe it's not that crazy for Rams fans to be excited about Austin or not to worried about losing an aging RB and often injured WR who haven't either ever or in years sniffed a pro bowl level performance.

    Just saying.
    The Lion has no interest in the opinion of the sheep.
    RichNhansom
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2902
    Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 7:26 am


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Thu Aug 15, 2013 7:18 am
  • Let's be honest here.

    Marvin desperately wants to believe that the Rams' success againt the Whiners last year was due, in large part, to Jackson and Amendola, two players no longer on the team.

    The reality is, the Rams' defense was the primary reason. They held the Niners to 37 points in 10 quarters, and scored a key safety and TD.

    The Rams defense, with guys like Quinn, Brockers and Jenkins still improving, and the addition of Alec Ogletree, should be as good or better than last year.

    That's what has guys like Marvin feeling a bit uneasy, and I don't blame him for feeling that way.
    User avatar
    AvengerRam
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 461
    Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 7:20 am


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Thu Aug 15, 2013 7:25 am
  • Seahawks.Net: where Rams and Niners fans argue about the supremacy of their teams.

    Never thought I'd see the day... :pukeface:
    _________________
    ...and with one kiss of his bicep he proved, without a shadow of doubt, that he was every bit as much of a DBag as his coach, and most of his team's fanbase. Finally, he could call himself a Niner!
    User avatar
    Trenchbroom
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 1747
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:47 am
    Location: Spokangeles


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Thu Aug 15, 2013 8:00 am
  • RichNhansom wrote:Austin wasn't the best receiver at WV. Stedman Bailey was (also drafted by the Rams) and what your ignoring about Austin is why you bring him in. It's not because you think he will have elite numbers it is because defenses cannot ignore him. It is a very large part of the reason Bailey had 1600 yards and 26 TD's his senior year alone and still wasn't considered a top draft prospect. It's what I refer to as the Harvin effect. Austin doesn't have to be a elite target to have a strong benefit to the offense.

    Also you were talking about one of your rookies (opposite the DT from KC) when referencing your front seven and you have also stated you believe you have the deepest roster in the NFL even though you believe letting Soap and RJF leave in FA equates to an upgrade, I can only assume through FA and the draft even though those are as big a mystery as Austin.

    You have downplayed losing an all pro safety and said Reid looks good in camp, dismissed Walker leaving because of drops last season while ignoring everything else he brings to your running game and was your second best TE and being replaced by a rookie and the list goes on. Maybe it's not that crazy for Rams fans to be excited about Austin or not to worried about losing an aging RB and often injured WR who haven't either ever or in years sniffed a pro bowl level performance.

    Just saying.


    Jeez....you too Rich? :D

    1) I am not sayin' Austin won't have any impact. I'm just sayin I ain't ready to crown the guy yet and make statements about how the Rams receivers "can't be covered" or that the Seahawks won't be able to jam them because they are too fast. The guy is lightning fast and quick...but he's also very small. Let him play before we assign him an "effect". LOL. Regardless of how good he is tho, he still has Bradford throwing to him. I need to look no further than Michael Crabtree to see how much the QB changes a WRs numbers. To me...and this is just my opinion...Bradford is much more Alex Smith than Colin Kaepernick.

    2) I mentioned Ian Williams only because I was listing the ENTIRE front 7. I could have (and probably should have) stopped short of saying anything about the NT and still been correct about the front 7, but I mentioned him because he'll likely start on the nose. I mentioned his camp mostly as a side note. I did make the comment about him playing better than Soap so I'll own up to that, but my intent was only to fill out the entire front 7. That's why I listed the position last. BTW, Ian Williams isn't a rookie either. He was an undrafted Free Agent LAST year. Do you seriously not think it ludicrous to claim that the Rams have the best secondary or best front 7 in the NFL? Come on now.

    3) I don't recall ever saying the Niners had the deepest roster in the NFL. Dashon Goldson? I've always thought he was overrated. That started LONG before this year. He was good for big hits and he was a great run defender but struggled in coverage (as evidensed late in the season and playoffs when Aldon and Justin were hurt). I have the same complaint of Whitner. Does his absense leave a hole in the secondary? Of course it does. Reid has looked good, but I'm not making any comments about him being as good as Goldson...especially not this year. I can only HOPE he's better in coverage down the road. Do I think he might be? Sure...but I am not making any definitive statements. Sopoaga and RJF? Sorry man....not a fan of those guys at all. It's a low bar to clear to be an upgrade. I think it was PFF that rated Soap as one of the worst NT in the NFL last year. RJF replaced Justin Smith and you can see in those games how effective he was in doing so.

    4) I have NOT dismissed Walker leaving. That one concerns me far more than Goldson. While Walkers numbers weren't stellar overall, Walker was a swiss army knife of a player that did everything and became a bit of a safety net for Kaep. His loss worries me and I can only hope that McDonald can be something close to what Walker was. McDonald doesn't have Walkers speed or quickness, but he is much larger and more of a classic TE. Again tho...McDonald is a rookie....so I have no idea how this will turn out. What I have said on several occasions is that while everyone is so concentrated on the #2 WR in SF, who ends up as the #2 TE is probably far more important. As you mentioned before, Walker played a huge role in the run game as well. Whenever the Niners called a Wham Play, it was always Walker who provided that block. He was the one who made the great block on Reed to get Frank in the endzone in the Super Bowl. I don't know where you got that I have dismissed the loss of Walker. That is one of my biggest concerns.

    5) I never said it was crazy for Rams fans to be excited or to not worry about Jackson/Amendola. I said it was ME who wasn't too worried about Austin and thought losing Jackson and Amendola would hurt them more than they think. I have always had a ton of respect for Jackson and hated playing against him. I just don't see that loss as something to be glossed over. The move to Richardson isn't an upgrade to me. It would be like the Niners letting Gore go and me saying that the move to LaMichael James/Kendall Hunter/Marcus Lattimore will actually be an upgrade. I like those guys...but come on now. It reminds me of when the Niners let Garrison Hearst go in favor of Kevan Barlow. Barlow was over 1000 yards and over 5 yards per carry. With Garrison gone, Barlows number fell to 822 (3.4 per carry) and 581 (3.3 per carry...and that was Franks rookie year and averaged 4.8 behind the same line). He then went on to the Jets and had 370 yards (2.8 per carry). I'm worried about Jackson now that he's with Atlanta. Yikes. As for Amendola...I can only speak about what he did to SF in that first matchup. 102 yards on 11 receptions and what very likely could have been the game winner if not for an illegal formation.
    Last edited by Marvin49 on Thu Aug 15, 2013 8:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2531
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Thu Aug 15, 2013 8:01 am
  • AvengerRam wrote:Let's be honest here.

    Marvin desperately wants to believe that the Rams' success againt the Whiners last year was due, in large part, to Jackson and Amendola, two players no longer on the team.

    The reality is, the Rams' defense was the primary reason. They held the Niners to 37 points in 10 quarters, and scored a key safety and TD.

    The Rams defense, with guys like Quinn, Brockers and Jenkins still improving, and the addition of Alec Ogletree, should be as good or better than last year.

    That's what has guys like Marvin feeling a bit uneasy, and I don't blame him for feeling that way.


    I don't feel uneasy at all about the Rams. Seattle tho...that's a different story. Thats why I'm here on a SEATTLE forum and not a Rams forum.

    What I find funny tho is how desperate Rams fans seem to try to inject themselves into the conversation.

    For the record, I attribute the loss to the Rams last year to great D by the Rams and a couple flukie plays. I attribute the tie to a good game from Jackson and Amendola, more good D by the Rams and Kaeps first extended game action. If I asked a Seattle fan about the loss to SF at Candlestick last year, I'd probably hear something about good D from the 49ers along with dropped passes by Seattle receivers, Wilson still making his way as a young QB and an OC who still had the training wheels on.

    I wouldn't get all defensive because they didn't attribute 100% of the win to great play by the Niners. I wouldn't be offended by that because its TRUE. It's true in most games that the team that lost has a hand in why they lost.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2531
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Thu Aug 15, 2013 8:50 am
  • RamzFanz wrote:I know no one will acknowledge what they have done, but it's going to be impressive.


    No, we won't and for one very good reason: until your team actually gets out on the field and starts playing games, you haven't done squat. Until your new backs and receivers get out there and prove they can consistently perform against NFL-level talent, you haven't done squat. Until your quarterback actually takes the next step and starts playing up to his potential, you haven't done squat. Until your defense proves it can build off of an admittedly good campaign in 2013, you haven't done squat.

    There have been too many teams over the years that have put together impressive-looking offseasons only to collapse when the games start counting for anyone to buy into this Rams team before the season even starts. Seattle and San Francisco are playoff teams. The Rams haven't even gotten to .500 since 2004. Until your team can change that, don't expect anyone here to fall down and anoint St. Louis as the next big thing. It's a big step from "respectable team" to "playoff team" and your Rams haven't done it yet.
    User avatar
    Shadowhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1150
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:05 am


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Thu Aug 15, 2013 9:20 am
  • Vernon Davis ran a 4.3 forty and did it at 6'3" 250. Is a far better athlete than Bailey or Austin, and is a better football player all around. Seattle seems to handle him just fine...Rams WR? Please.


    I'd also like to point out that none of the RBs in St. Louis have scored a rushing TD in the NFL.


    Just like their WRs (well they're a little better with a whopping NINE TDs! NINE...COMBINED).


    Maybe the Rams should fu :34853_doh: ng do something before their fans say ANYTHING. This thread is a joke.
    Image

    Go Hawks.
    User avatar
    SouthSoundHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2108
    Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:06 am


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Thu Aug 15, 2013 9:31 am
  • Even the great Steven Jackson never managed 100 yards on the ground against the Seahawks.
    poop
    User avatar
    SacHawk2.0
    .NOT a Moderator
     
    Posts: 9650
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:51 pm
    Location: With a white girl


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Thu Aug 15, 2013 9:35 am
  • Marvin should just drop a picture of their NFC Championship banner or shirt and be done with it.

    Lord knows Ram fans forgot what those are like.
    Image
    3elieve
    User avatar
    Throwdown
    * NET Baller *
     
    Posts: 18797
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Graham, WA


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Thu Aug 15, 2013 9:38 am
  • Shadowhawk wrote:
    RamzFanz wrote:I know no one will acknowledge what they have done, but it's going to be impressive.


    No, we won't and for one very good reason: until your team actually gets out on the field and starts playing games, you haven't done squat. Until your new backs and receivers get out there and prove they can consistently perform against NFL-level talent, you haven't done squat. Until your quarterback actually takes the next step and starts playing up to his potential, you haven't done squat. Until your defense proves it can build off of an admittedly good campaign in 2013, you haven't done squat.

    There have been too many teams over the years that have put together impressive-looking offseasons only to collapse when the games start counting for anyone to buy into this Rams team before the season even starts. Seattle and San Francisco are playoff teams. The Rams haven't even gotten to .500 since 2004. Until your team can change that, don't expect anyone here to fall down and anoint St. Louis as the next big thing. It's a big step from "respectable team" to "playoff team" and your Rams haven't done it yet.


    I always wonder why opposing fans think the Rams are depending on just new players. Richardson is a second year player. Richardson had more YPC than SJ39 and, despite having 160 less carries, had many longer runs than SJ. Givens had a rookie record 5 consecutive games with catches over 50 yards and developed a solid intermediate game the second half of the season. Kendricks is a good TE. Almost the entire D is back. Bradford set many rookie records and improves the w/l ratio by his presence on the field. He surpassed his stellar rookie season last season. His RZ rating the last 8 games when the O line was decent was 102.

    That alone, of course, is NOT a winning team.

    The O line has to be better and stay healthy. They added Long and they are currently pretty healthy. Crossing fingers.

    The passing game has to improve. You don't think Givens, Cook, Austin, Kendricks and Bailey with a decent O line for once will improve the passing game from last season? Even Pettis and Quick are showing great improvement. This is going to sound homer, and you'll probably dismiss it, but Givens may go elite this season. He really is that good. Cook and Kendricks may be the best TE tandem in the NFL. Cook is looking like Bradford's favorite and he's been nothing short of amazing in TC. TA and Bailey are both tearing it up in TC. Bradford has never come close to having this many potential targets. I honestly believe the Rams have 4-5 future pro bowl skill players on this O this season.

    The Rams have a very good D for the first time in many seasons. Also for the first time in many seasons, the O is actually playing this very good D and beating them in camp. That may not sound like a big thing to you, but when the Rams receivers can beat the Rams corners, that's a big deal. They are very good corners and we know that's a big sign that we haven't seen since the GSOT.

    What the Hawks' and Niners' fans say is true, they are unproven as a unit. What I'm saying is the potential for the Rams to compete for the NFCW title is far far greater than you are seeing. It's an offense with deep talent. It's their first time in the same O system which allowed them to spend all their time improving instead of starting all over. Universally, from the front office, to the coaches, to the players, to the reporters and fans, and even to the skeptics, people are starting to see massive potential in the Rams that just hasn't been there in a long time.

    Not for 2015 or 2014, THIS season.

    We aren't claiming any victories for the Rams (well, maybe a few over the top statements). Just giving fair warning, they aren't what you think.
    FSOT- Fastest Show On Turf - 2013 RAMS
    Image
    User avatar
    RamzFanz
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 134
    Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 3:18 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Thu Aug 15, 2013 9:42 am
  • you're comparing a kitten to two grizzly bears.

    I feel disrespected to have Rams fans on here trying to get acceptance about their little team.
    Image
    3elieve
    User avatar
    Throwdown
    * NET Baller *
     
    Posts: 18797
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Graham, WA


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Thu Aug 15, 2013 9:48 am
  • By the way, I apologize for the post in Seahawks forum. It should have been in the NFL forum. And I have made a few over the top remarks that were unworthy of my actual position.

    I can't help but be passionate and excited about this season. It is going to be one hell of a NFCW battle.
    FSOT- Fastest Show On Turf - 2013 RAMS
    Image
    User avatar
    RamzFanz
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 134
    Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 3:18 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:05 am
  • SouthSoundHawk wrote:Vernon Davis ran a 4.3 forty and did it at 6'3" 250. Is a far better athlete than Bailey or Austin, and is a better football player all around. Seattle seems to handle him just fine...Rams WR? Please.


    I'd also like to point out that none of the RBs in St. Louis have scored a rushing TD in the NFL.


    Just like their WRs (well they're a little better with a whopping NINE TDs! NINE...COMBINED).


    Maybe the Rams should fu :34853_doh: ng do something before their fans say ANYTHING. This thread is a joke.


    It's a little early to call Vernon "a far better athlete" than Austin or Bailey, don't you think? I mean, seriously, Vernon is a top guy and I have nothing but respect for him, but Austin is an amazing athlete. We'll see how well that translates to the NFL, but announcers would say things like "You aren't suppossed to be abe to do that in football" and "He has the best feet in college football today" and "He's Houdini" and "WOW... just WOW. So, he may possibly have a little talent? No? 4.25 40 speed MIGHT help a little?

    Bailey had 1,600 yards and 25 TD's as a senior. Not exactly talentless. Is that fair? I mean, he CAN catch a ball at least, yes?

    How about Givens? A rookie record 5 straight games with 50+ yard catches? 4.3 speed? Is he really so easy to cover?

    Cook and Kendricks? Cook with a 4.49 40, 6'5" at 250 and a catch radius the size of Texas? Are they talentless too?

    I honestly think you are in for a shock. Honestly. Sincerely.

    NOPE, it's not for sure and it is unproven, but my 35 years watching football and consistent top FF performances tell me something very big is brewing in STL. We'll see.
    FSOT- Fastest Show On Turf - 2013 RAMS
    Image
    User avatar
    RamzFanz
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 134
    Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 3:18 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:25 am
  • Marvin49 wrote:
    I don't feel uneasy at all about the Rams. Seattle tho...that's a different story. Thats why I'm here on a SEATTLE forum and not a Rams forum.

    What I find funny tho is how desperate Rams fans seem to try to inject themselves into the conversation.

    For the record, I attribute the loss to the Rams last year to great D by the Rams and a couple flukie plays. I attribute the tie to a good game from Jackson and Amendola, more good D by the Rams and Kaeps first extended game action. If I asked a Seattle fan about the loss to SF at Candlestick last year, I'd probably hear something about good D from the 49ers along with dropped passes by Seattle receivers, Wilson still making his way as a young QB and an OC who still had the training wheels on.

    I wouldn't get all defensive because they didn't attribute 100% of the win to great play by the Niners. I wouldn't be offended by that because its TRUE. It's true in most games that the team that lost has a hand in why they lost.


    We are the early messengers that a third and previously unknown army has entered the battle and they are far more dangerous than you may presume.

    By the way, that "great D" is, just as often as not, getting schooled in camp by the amazing offense Fisher / Snead and company has put together.

    It's OK not to see it at this point because you probably don't follow the Rams that close, but you don't just beat the Rams' corners with nobodies.
    FSOT- Fastest Show On Turf - 2013 RAMS
    Image
    User avatar
    RamzFanz
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 134
    Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 3:18 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:36 am
  • RamzFanz wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    I don't feel uneasy at all about the Rams. Seattle tho...that's a different story. Thats why I'm here on a SEATTLE forum and not a Rams forum.

    What I find funny tho is how desperate Rams fans seem to try to inject themselves into the conversation.

    For the record, I attribute the loss to the Rams last year to great D by the Rams and a couple flukie plays. I attribute the tie to a good game from Jackson and Amendola, more good D by the Rams and Kaeps first extended game action. If I asked a Seattle fan about the loss to SF at Candlestick last year, I'd probably hear something about good D from the 49ers along with dropped passes by Seattle receivers, Wilson still making his way as a young QB and an OC who still had the training wheels on.

    I wouldn't get all defensive because they didn't attribute 100% of the win to great play by the Niners. I wouldn't be offended by that because its TRUE. It's true in most games that the team that lost has a hand in why they lost.


    We are the early messengers that a third and previously unknown army has entered the battle and they are far more dangerous than you may presume.

    By the way, that "great D" is, just as often as not, getting schooled in camp by the amazing offense Fisher / Snead and company has put together.

    It's OK not to see it at this point because you probably don't follow the Rams that close, but you don't just beat the Rams' corners with nobodies.


    I've seen alot of offseason dreams fade quickly in September. I have no doubt that you believe what you are saying, but you also have to understand how the chest beating sounds to 49er and Seahawk fans. IE...false.

    I get that you are excited for the coming season...and I would be to if my team had been under .500 in 18 of the last 22 years. It doesn't happen overnight tho. Teams are more than the sum of thier parts. It takes time for players to come together. Vernon Davis and Michael Crabtree were both at one point spoken about as busts. I wouldn't expect any rookie receiver to come in and light the NFL on fire. It very rarely happens. Does that mean it can't? Of course not...but don't set yourself up for disappointment. If I were a Rams fan I'd approach this season the way i approached 49er seasons several years ago. I saw the talent but I understood it takes time to put it all together.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2531
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:12 am
  • Austin may be an athlete, but Reggie Bush was suppose to be all that also and while he can be dynamic what has he really done other then a few notable plays here and there, Desmond Howard was another Athlete, had a MVP moment in a Super bowl with his Kick returning not his receiveing abilities, Thats what I see as an Austin upside, I don't see him being Terry Metcalf, who was by far the best undersized player I have ever watched, even he had injuries shorten his career.

    Austin may make explosive plays, but I liken it to a small guy fighting a big guy, small guy gets inside and gets a shot or two here and there, but he pays a high price for every blow he lands in just physical domination. Once tired or worn down some the big guy makes it hurt bad for those couple shots the small guy got in earlier.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Used to be an Alumni till they pulled a USC on me...
    .Net official Clueless, Dumbass, Douche, Simpleton, CensoredTard , Idiot, member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 9735
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:50 am
  • chris98251 wrote:Austin may be an athlete, but Reggie Bush was suppose to be all that also and while he can be dynamic what has he really done other then a few notable plays here and there, Desmond Howard was another Athlete, had a MVP moment in a Super bowl with his Kick returning not his receiveing abilities, Thats what I see as an Austin upside, I don't see him being Terry Metcalf, who was by far the best undersized player I have ever watched, even he had injuries shorten his career.

    Austin may make explosive plays, but I liken it to a small guy fighting a big guy, small guy gets inside and gets a shot or two here and there, but he pays a high price for every blow he lands in just physical domination. Once tired or worn down some the big guy makes it hurt bad for those couple shots the small guy got in earlier.


    Wouldn't all of these comments be good arguments against paying a King's ransom for Percy Harvin?
    User avatar
    AvengerRam
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 461
    Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 7:20 am


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:57 am
  • AvengerRam wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:Austin may be an athlete, but Reggie Bush was suppose to be all that also and while he can be dynamic what has he really done other then a few notable plays here and there, Desmond Howard was another Athlete, had a MVP moment in a Super bowl with his Kick returning not his receiveing abilities, Thats what I see as an Austin upside, I don't see him being Terry Metcalf, who was by far the best undersized player I have ever watched, even he had injuries shorten his career.

    Austin may make explosive plays, but I liken it to a small guy fighting a big guy, small guy gets inside and gets a shot or two here and there, but he pays a high price for every blow he lands in just physical domination. Once tired or worn down some the big guy makes it hurt bad for those couple shots the small guy got in earlier.


    Wouldn't all of these comments be good arguments against paying a King's ransom for Percy Harvin?


    Harvin is 3 inches taller and at least 10-15 lbs heavier.

    Just sayin'.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2531
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:08 pm
  • Marvin49 wrote:
    AvengerRam wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:Austin may be an athlete, but Reggie Bush was suppose to be all that also and while he can be dynamic what has he really done other then a few notable plays here and there, Desmond Howard was another Athlete, had a MVP moment in a Super bowl with his Kick returning not his receiveing abilities, Thats what I see as an Austin upside, I don't see him being Terry Metcalf, who was by far the best undersized player I have ever watched, even he had injuries shorten his career.

    Austin may make explosive plays, but I liken it to a small guy fighting a big guy, small guy gets inside and gets a shot or two here and there, but he pays a high price for every blow he lands in just physical domination. Once tired or worn down some the big guy makes it hurt bad for those couple shots the small guy got in earlier.


    Wouldn't all of these comments be good arguments against paying a King's ransom for Percy Harvin?


    Harvin is 3 inches taller and at least 10-15 lbs heavier.

    Just sayin'.


    Not exactly. According to the teams' official web sites, their heights/weights are as follows:

    Harvin: 5'11, 184
    Austin: 5'8, 176

    So... Austin is only 8 pounds lighter despite being 3 inches shorter. That would suggest that Austin is as muscular, if not more so, than Harvin.

    Both players, though, are significantly lighter than the average player that hits them in a game, so the analogy is appropriate.
    User avatar
    AvengerRam
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 461
    Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 7:20 am


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:19 pm
  • Marvin49 wrote:
    RamzFanz wrote:
    We are the early messengers that a third and previously unknown army has entered the battle and they are far more dangerous than you may presume.

    By the way, that "great D" is, just as often as not, getting schooled in camp by the amazing offense Fisher / Snead and company has put together.

    It's OK not to see it at this point because you probably don't follow the Rams that close, but you don't just beat the Rams' corners with nobodies.


    I've seen alot of offseason dreams fade quickly in September. I have no doubt that you believe what you are saying, but you also have to understand how the chest beating sounds to 49er and Seahawk fans. IE...false.

    I get that you are excited for the coming season...and I would be to if my team had been under .500 in 18 of the last 22 years. It doesn't happen overnight tho. Teams are more than the sum of thier parts. It takes time for players to come together. Vernon Davis and Michael Crabtree were both at one point spoken about as busts. I wouldn't expect any rookie receiver to come in and light the NFL on fire. It very rarely happens. Does that mean it can't? Of course not...but don't set yourself up for disappointment. If I were a Rams fan I'd approach this season the way i approached 49er seasons several years ago. I saw the talent but I understood it takes time to put it all together.


    Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I've been watching football long enough to be a reasonable judge of talent. This is the real deal.

    The perception that the Rams are talking about Rookies is a false perception. The O line consists of many former first round draft picks and pro bowl veterans. The D are almost all returning players except one safety and Ogletree. The O skill players, Bradford, Givens, Quick, Pettis, Kendricks, Richardson, Pead, and Gannaway are all returning players. Cook is a veteran. Kickers and punters are returning players.

    The only Rookies that are starting on O are TA, who will play many roles and is an exceptional talent, and Bailey, who is also looking far better than could be expected at this point. Quite frankly, they are the icing on the cake and I'm very confident they will contribute enough to give the Rams a formidable O. If TA only returned kicks and punts and Bailey only spelled Givens when he needed it, that alone may be enough. Givens and Cook are looking to be elite this season. Kendricks is a solid TE and Quick and Pettis are coming on strong. Bradford can throw and Richardson can run and catch. Pead may just be as good as his talent. Stacy is also good but probably not really needed yet.
    FSOT- Fastest Show On Turf - 2013 RAMS
    Image
    User avatar
    RamzFanz
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 134
    Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 3:18 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:29 pm
  • chris98251 wrote:Austin may be an athlete, but Reggie Bush was suppose to be all that also and while he can be dynamic what has he really done other then a few notable plays here and there, Desmond Howard was another Athlete, had a MVP moment in a Super bowl with his Kick returning not his receiveing abilities, Thats what I see as an Austin upside, I don't see him being Terry Metcalf, who was by far the best undersized player I have ever watched, even he had injuries shorten his career.

    Austin may make explosive plays, but I liken it to a small guy fighting a big guy, small guy gets inside and gets a shot or two here and there, but he pays a high price for every blow he lands in just physical domination. Once tired or worn down some the big guy makes it hurt bad for those couple shots the small guy got in earlier.


    See, I've watched a LOT of TA and I think you're not seeing how this guy survives and thrives.

    One of his best talents is avoiding the hit. He missed a total of zero games and one practice in HS and college.

    The man has no pride! He runs out of bounds and goes down like a $2 wh... well, you know what I mean. I was watching his highlight reel and in this one play he was trapped on the sideline by three defenders who were going to pound him. So he stutter steps. At first I thought he was trying to pull a move but then I realised he was just forcing them to change speed and direction so they wouldn't have the angle or momentum to put the hit on him. He takes the yards left and steps out.

    So, I don't think your analogy is correct. The big guy doesn't get to hit back because he eliminates the opportunity. Will that transfer to the NFL? God, I hope so.
    Last edited by RamzFanz on Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    FSOT- Fastest Show On Turf - 2013 RAMS
    Image
    User avatar
    RamzFanz
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 134
    Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 3:18 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:31 pm
  • AvengerRam wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    AvengerRam wrote:
    Wouldn't all of these comments be good arguments against paying a King's ransom for Percy Harvin?


    Harvin is 3 inches taller and at least 10-15 lbs heavier.

    Just sayin'.


    Not exactly. According to the teams' official web sites, their heights/weights are as follows:

    Harvin: 5'11, 184
    Austin: 5'8, 176

    So... Austin is only 8 pounds lighter despite being 3 inches shorter. That would suggest that Austin is as muscular, if not more so, than Harvin.

    Both players, though, are significantly lighter than the average player that hits them in a game, so the analogy is appropriate.


    ...and you are using the combine weight of a player who's been in the league now for several years. I highly doubt Harvin is still 184 lbs. Players usually put on weight in NFL training rooms.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2531
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:35 pm
  • RamzFanz wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:Austin may be an athlete, but Reggie Bush was suppose to be all that also and while he can be dynamic what has he really done other then a few notable plays here and there, Desmond Howard was another Athlete, had a MVP moment in a Super bowl with his Kick returning not his receiveing abilities, Thats what I see as an Austin upside, I don't see him being Terry Metcalf, who was by far the best undersized player I have ever watched, even he had injuries shorten his career.

    Austin may make explosive plays, but I liken it to a small guy fighting a big guy, small guy gets inside and gets a shot or two here and there, but he pays a high price for every blow he lands in just physical domination. Once tired or worn down some the big guy makes it hurt bad for those couple shots the small guy got in earlier.


    See, I've watched a LOT of TA and I think you're not seeing how this guy survives and thrives.

    One of his best talents is avoiding the hit. He missed a total of zero games and one practice in HS and college.

    The man has no pride! He runs out of bounds and goes down like a $2 wh... well, you know what I mean. I was watching his highlight reel and in this one play he was trapped on the sideline by three defenders who were going to pound him. So he stutter steps. At first I thought he was trying to pull a move but then I realised he was just forcing them to change speed and direction so they couldn't put the hit on him. He takes the yards left and steps out.

    So, I don't think your analogy is correct. The big guy doesn't get to hit back because he eliminates the opportunity. Will that transfer to the NFL? God, I hope so.

    So, you're saying he's a wuss?

    :stirthepot:
    Talent can get you to the playoffs.
    It takes character to win when you get there.

    SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS
    User avatar
    sutz
    USMC 1970-77
     
    Posts: 9907
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
    Location: Monroe, WA


Re: Who will cover the Rams?
Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:41 pm
  • Marvin49 wrote:
    AvengerRam wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    Not exactly. According to the teams' official web sites, their heights/weights are as follows:

    Harvin: 5'11, 184
    Austin: 5'8, 176

    So... Austin is only 8 pounds lighter despite being 3 inches shorter. That would suggest that Austin is as muscular, if not more so, than Harvin.

    Both players, though, are significantly lighter than the average player that hits them in a game, so the analogy is appropriate.


    ...and you are using the combine weight of a player who's been in the league now for several years. I highly doubt Harvin is still 184 lbs. Players usually put on weight in NFL training rooms.


    Austin is exceptionally small for an NFL slot receiver. He's also a very smart and explosively talented player who knows he's small, hence his amazing record of staying healthy. It's a concern but even if he fails to continue to stay healthy, he's not the end all be all of the Rams O.
    FSOT- Fastest Show On Turf - 2013 RAMS
    Image
    User avatar
    RamzFanz
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 134
    Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 3:18 pm


PreviousNext


It is currently Mon Jul 28, 2014 4:26 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ NFL NATION ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 11 guests