We kind of got ahead of ourselves there, didn't we? Our Rams got to 4-4 at the halfway point, got some love from seriously "real" media sources like ESPN, and we were already thinking Super Bowl...or at the very least, playoffs via a division title. Then, this last weekend, the Rams blew a lead late, showed zero fourth quarter killer instinct, and lost to San Francisco 20-23 in OT.
Ram fans are completelty upset, making wild comments about how we "choked in a huge game," or how we "surprisingly don't know how to play with the lead." Luckily, I can step back from this crazy bandwagon group think and be realistic. The Rams have surprised us with some nice wins this year. We were in first place in the division, which was almost too much for us to handle. But, we have shown that we have difficulty crushing the bad guys late in the game with the lead, and we're still the Rams. Sure, it's been nice, but let's stay realistic and rational here, fans. This loss to the 49'ers isn't like the Pats losing to the Browns, it's more like the Chiefs losing to the Raiders.
I know it hurts to hear, but we straight up can't figure it out on the road (we've lost 20 of our last 22 road games). In the first NFL battle between two Hesiman Trophy winners in six years (the last being Carson Palmer v Vinny Testaverde), the QBs didn't play great. But, Troy Smith's ability to stay agile and make the big passes late was the difference. He piloted two late scoring drives that the Rams fairly weak secondary were helpless to stop, and then pushed his team forward just enough in OT to set up the winning field goal. Bradford led the Rams down the field at the end of regulation to get the field goal that pushed us to the extra session, but after winning the coin toss in OT, we couldn't get a first down. Give credit to Smith, though, as he outplayed Bradford and was clearly the better QB in the game.
It's even easy to say that it could have been much worse, and we maybe shouldn't have even been as close as we were to winning. The 49'ers got penalized 14 times in the game, three times negating scores. That handed us the chance to win things, but we got flagged 12 times and for 30 more yards than SF, which handed it right back. And, speaking of ugly, the Rams went 2 for 14 on third down chances. But, that beat SF's mark of ZERO for 11. Like I said, it was ugly. Bradford finished 30/42 for 251 with a TD and no INTs. Gibson was actually his favorite target, getting 72 yards, and Steven Jackson caught for 67 to add to his 81 on the ground. Danny Amendola, with 7 catches for 51 yards, caught the lone TD. The Rams had 5 sacks on the former Buckeye turned Steve Young wannabe, and Dahl led the way with 13 tackles, but all that pressure came at a price. Leaving less coverage downfield didn't exactly work out.
So, we're 4-5. Is that so bad, considering where we've been the last 3 years? No, it's really, really good. And we still have a shot to win this division. We're currently 1 game back of the 5-4 Seahawks, and 1 game up on SF and Arizona (each 3-6). This division is still completely up in the air. We have a total point differential of -4 (17th in the league), but our improved defense is ranked 6th in points allowed (18.2/game). Our total SRS is -4.7 (remember that 0.0 is the "average" NFL team), but our defense is +1.9. We're +2 on overall TD differential, which again points out just how good our defense has been (until late in the SF game). Meanwhile, our strength of schedule is a lowly -4.2, which means things are probably going to be getting more difficult as we work toward the end of the year.
Since we're so much better than we have been, I thought it would be a good time to assess Steven Jackson's performance. Eric Dickerson said that S-Jack goes unnoticed because he plays on a "bad" team. I'm curious to see how his numbers line up when he's on a really bad team (last 3 years) vs a pretty bad team (2006 and this year). How do his stats compare over the last five seasons? We'll look at Total Yards/Game (Y/G), Rushing & Receiving TDs adjusted to 16 games (RRTDa), and Approximate Value (AV). We'll also see the Rams record (or "on pace record" for this year) to compare how he does on a really bad team vs a pretty bad team.
2006 (8-8): 145.9 Y/G, 16 RRTDa, 19 AV
2007 (3-13): 106.1 Y/G, 8 RRTDa, 8 AV
2008 (2-14): 118.4 Y/G, 10.67 RRTDa, 8 AV
2009 (1-15): 115.9 Y/G, 4.27 RRTDa, 8 AV
2010 (on pace for 7-9): 110.3 Y/G, 5.33 RRTDa, AV to be determined
Clearly, out of these 5 years, Jackson was at his best when the Rams were at their best. Now, this can all be a product of a better offensive line, a better offensive playbook, and/or a healthier Jackson. But, can you say that he has gone unnoticed despite being an amazing RB because he's been on bad teams? Well, I do think he's an amazing RB, but to say he's like the NFL's Zack Greinke (winning the Cy Young with a 16-8 record and a 2.16 ERA on a 65-97 Royals squad) is a bit of a stetch. Jackson just isn't nearly as good when the Rams are having a down year, and I think that's becoming even more clear when you look at his numbers on this 4-5 campaign. It's not a serious knock, because I love the guy, but it's just a fact.
As you are hopefully well aware, thanks to me pointing it out earlier in the post, the season is not going to be getting easier. Sunday afternoon we go toe to toe with the Atlanta Falcons (7-2). I'm still smarting from Michael Vick eliminating us from the playoffs with his fancy footwork so many years ago (I think it was the season I lived with B in the "Woop" house). These Falcons may not have Vick, but they sure are a solid team. After beating the Ravens 26-21, they enjoyed a bye week, and head into the clash at the Ed Jones Dome nice and rested. Although, the Ramies have been sparkling at home this year, they are only 3 point dogs, and crazier things have happened. The Falcons are 2-0 against the NFC West this year, outscoing the Cards and 9'ers by a combined 57-21. Can Spags and the Rams turn that whole thing around and provide us with a shocker?
Probably not, but I'll still be rooting.
-- Sent from my Palm Prē
0 comments:
Post a Comment