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:
Hence my responses.
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)
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.