Largent80":dnwhs0fz said:The Rams could possibly turn a corner with Bradford gone. But I doubt it.
kearly":2kb3j72b said:I respect the Cardinals as an organization, but...
This is a team that had disguised regression last season, dropping nearly 3 wins in football outsiders 'estimated wins' metric from their number in 2013. Any Cardinals fan who watched that team knew the 2013 version was better, even though it won one fewer game.
At one point the Cardinals were 9-1 but had the DVOA of a .500 or worse team. People point to injuries, but even when healthy and winning, they were one of the biggest overachievers in recent memory.
It wasn't until the final game of the season that the Cardinals lost a game decided by one score. They finished 5-1 in such games. In all other games, they were 6-5 with a mediocre point differential.
I think they are a threat in the sense that anything is possible and they are 'good enough'. But I think they'd need to win almost every close game and have Seattle lose almost every close game to pull it off. I'd give that maybe a 10% chance of happening.
RedAlice":cpi91jrx said:Largent80":cpi91jrx said:The Rams could possibly turn a corner with Bradford gone. But I doubt it.
I could read that sentence over and over...with Bradford gone. So lovely.
It's all a big unknown right now.
Except for that one fact I can read over and over.
Evil_Shenanigans":35jugxgd said:As others have mentioned Palmers health is paramount to their post season aspirations. The Run game aside of course.
Largent80":971vqe1a said:The Rams could possibly turn a corner with Bradford gone. But I doubt it.
Ramfan128":33rzt0uy said:kearly":33rzt0uy said:I respect the Cardinals as an organization, but...
This is a team that had disguised regression last season, dropping nearly 3 wins in football outsiders 'estimated wins' metric from their number in 2013. Any Cardinals fan who watched that team knew the 2013 version was better, even though it won one fewer game.
At one point the Cardinals were 9-1 but had the DVOA of a .500 or worse team. People point to injuries, but even when healthy and winning, they were one of the biggest overachievers in recent memory.
It wasn't until the final game of the season that the Cardinals lost a game decided by one score. They finished 5-1 in such games. In all other games, they were 6-5 with a mediocre point differential.
I think they are a threat in the sense that anything is possible and they are 'good enough'. But I think they'd need to win almost every close game and have Seattle lose almost every close game to pull it off. I'd give that maybe a 10% chance of happening.
This!
Thanks for putting this into words. I noticed this with the eyeball test last year, but didn't actually look up any advanced metrics about them.
I would put Foles and Palmer in the same category too....Palmer when healthy is still just a middle of the pack guy.
What Seattle did to them in Arizona was just incomprehensible if I'm a Cardinal fan. I get not scoring with a 3rd string QB - but that d giving up 500 yards at home? Crazy.
Of course, the Giants came in and embarrassed my Rams....so I can't really talk.