Are the Rams a better team after Week 17 of 2014 than they were after Week 17 of 2013?

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

Are the Rams a better team after Week 17 of 2014 than they were after Week 17 of 2013?

  • Yes

    Votes: 72 74.2%

  • No

    Votes: 25 25.8%
  • Total voters
    97
I think they're most definitely better than at the end of last season. This defense is borderline elite and will only get better. Just a few tweaks here and there with no major moves necessary.

The offense needs work, but for the longest time we've lacked talent at the WR position and a RB that can hit the home run.

Unfortunately the OL still needs work, and the most important position on the football field (QB) is the one where we lack stability.

I'm comfortable saying we're a few OL and a QB away from being a playoff team. Last season I thought we needed a lot more work.
 
I voted yes, because I think that the talent on the team is better, and unfortunately we had some horrific injuries at very key positions.... several games directly affected by terrible officiating and of course, stupid mistakes on our own part. But I do think we have a better team. The only reason I was going to vote no is that because this is the 3rd year of the Fisher era, and we've gone from 8 losses to 9 losses to now 10 losses. This was a trend we had in the late 90's until we won a Super Bowl the next year.
 
Ky Ram said:
If you don't measure a teams success by their record why play the games?
I'm not trying to be difficult, but all teams face some sort of adversity and they either overcome it or they don't.
We didn't.
I like that we're at least almost always competitive, but that doesn't make us a better team. If we were better our record would show it. They don't give out trophies for rankings, it's wins and losses.
Click to expand...

There is much more to it than just wins and losses. If the Rams were playing in the NFC South they win the division and have a winning record. Everyone lauds the Colts but who do they play? Their wins are meaningless. Take Luck off of that team and they are below average. But all that matters is their record? Just getting a winning record is only part of it. Who are you getting it against. Many people would be happy if the Rams got to the playoffs. In almost any other division they probably do that. Then the next step would be winning against the top playoff teams. Unfortunately they already have to play against those teams in the regular season, twice.

Here is proof that the wins are all that matters argument is crap. The Panthers win their division and are in the playoffs. Where do they finish in the NFC West? First? What would their record be playing the Seahawks Niners and Cardinals twice every year. Then add in Dallas, Philly, NY Giants, Redskins, Vikings, Broncos, Chargers, Chiefs. They win fewer games than the Rams yet right now they are a game better. So if this exact same Rams team were in the NFC South it could be reasoned that with an easier schedule they have a winning record and make the playoffs. So now the record is better but the team is the exact same team that you were not okay with when they had a losing record playing in the NFC West.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LesBaker
Boy, I just don't know.

Based on record? No, obviously.

Based on what some call "the eyeball test"? Yes, but it's very close.

To me, it's the inconsistency that says - if they have improved - it's only slightly.

They still commit silly penalties, they still have mental lapses at important times in games.

Last year, they could go out and beat a good team (Indianapolis, New Orleans) yet lose to inferior teams (Tennessee, Atlanta).

This year, they could go out and beat a good team (Seattle, Denver) yet lose to inferior teams (NY Giants, Minnesota).

And, remember, Bradford was out for a good chunk of last year.

Until they can become more consistent (beat teams that should beat consistently) and beat more superior teams (not feel like it was such a surprise), I'd say that the improvement year-over-year will be negligible.

I truly believe that, if Fisher does not dismiss Schottenhiemer, get an innovative OC and let him do his job, he (Fisher) is signing his 2015 walking papers.
 
I say better, but need some key upgrades to get over the hump. This year we beat both SB teams from last year (maybe this year too?). You don't do that if you are a bad team. We had several games we should have won but did not for one reason or another.

And look at this latest game, even with the O not really doing anything, we where right there with the home field through out the playoffs team. Twice we are driving for TD's only to turn the ball over, both on two outstanding (but very lucky) plays by the other team. We get Wilson to fumble twice only to have the ball bounce right back in his hands or to another seattle players hands. If they just get JJ to play his position and stop trying to guess where the ball is going, just do your job and let the others do theirs.

I guess the final reason I say better is how I react to the games this year. I actually get mad and yell at the TV when mistakes happen or we lose (did some of that yesterday) as in past years its just a shoulder shrug. I expect this team to win now, not just hoping they will win. If they fix the o line in the off season and get a couple players to just worry about doing their job and trusting the others to do their job, they will be a playoff team and probably NFC West Champions next year. I see a light at the end of what has been a very long tunnel. Let's hope they can get done what needs to get done, cause really that is all we can do!

P.S. and the NFL has to do something to make the officials accountable, to many questionable calls to be the best at your craft!
 
Elmgrovegnome said:
In the end but would you demand wins from Fisher in year 1? year 2? I think you just wanted improvement. Why? Because of the depth of disaster that was the Rams roster. Consider the amount of turnover that instantly took place. Then consider who was on the team when he took over and who is on the team now. The Rams have the youngest roster in the NFL for a reason. Because they were the absolute worst team in the NFL for years. Not just a bad team but the worst team. This isn't Bill OBrien taking over the Texans who recently had playoff appearances. This is a team that won 5 games in 3 years. So, if Bill OBrien gets 3 years to turn it around shouldn't Fisher get 5?

I think Kroenke lets Fisher play out his contract and then make a decision. Why? Because the team was beyond a mess and just hiring a new coach is like getting a new QB. It is very difficult. I prefer to stick to the plan that the Steelers and Patriots stick to and see how it plays out for once. Cowher had three losing seasons in a row between successes. But then he got back to the Superbowl. And everyone wants him to come out of retirement. Stick to the plan.

Besides I always despised the much overrated Parcells.
Click to expand...
Lions were the worst team a few years ago. Now they're a playoff contender.
 
Elmgrovegnome said:
There is much more to it than just wins and losses. If the Rams were playing in the NFC South they win the division and have a winning record. Everyone lauds the Colts but who do they play? Their wins are meaningless. Take Luck off of that team and they are below average. But all that matters is their record? Just getting a winning record is only part of it. Who are you getting it against. Many people would be happy if the Rams got to the playoffs. In almost any other division they probably do that. Then the next step would be winning against the top playoff teams. Unfortunately they already have to play against those teams in the regular season, twice.

Here is proof that the wins are all that matters argument is crap. The Panthers win their division and are in the playoffs. Where do they finish in the NFC West? First? What would their record be playing the Seahawks Niners and Cardinals twice every year. Then add in Dallas, Philly, NY Giants, Redskins, Vikings, Broncos, Chargers, Chiefs. They win fewer games than the Rams yet right now they are a game better. So if this exact same Rams team were in the NFC South it could be reasoned that with an easier schedule they have a winning record and make the playoffs. So now the record is better but the team is the exact same team that you were not okay with when they had a losing record playing in the NFC West.
Click to expand...
The Rams tend to play the teams In Their division better than they play the teams outside.
Elmgrovegnome said:
There is much more to it than just wins and losses. If the Rams were playing in the NFC South they win the division and have a winning record. Everyone lauds the Colts but who do they play? Their wins are meaningless. Take Luck off of that team and they are below average. But all that matters is their record? Just getting a winning record is only part of it. Who are you getting it against. Many people would be happy if the Rams got to the playoffs. In almost any other division they probably do that. Then the next step would be winning against the top playoff teams. Unfortunately they already have to play against those teams in the regular season, twice.

Here is proof that the wins are all that matters argument is crap. The Panthers win their division and are in the playoffs. Where do they finish in the NFC West? First? What would their record be playing the Seahawks Niners and Cardinals twice every year. Then add in Dallas, Philly, NY Giants, Redskins, Vikings, Broncos, Chargers, Chiefs. They win fewer games than the Rams yet right now they are a game better. So if this exact same Rams team were in the NFC South it could be reasoned that with an easier schedule they have a winning record and make the playoffs. So now the record is better but the team is the exact same team that you were not okay with when they had a losing record playing in the NFC West.
Click to expand...
The Rams tend to play better against teams in their division, so who's to say that if they change divisions they'd be a better team? Most of the games we were supposed to win we lost, and the ones we were supposed to lose we won.
 
Memphis Ram said:
As Bill Parcells once said, "you are what your record says you are."
Click to expand...
Bill Parcells also said "If your going to hire a chef, let him pick his own groceries". Well, that didn't quite work out for him. (Referring to his attempt at HC/GM)
 
Considering the question as stated record doesn't matter what matters is whether the roster is better.
If we have to consider record and whether this team was better maybe we aught to consider if this team would have had a better record if it had Sam at QB for 6 games
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elmgrovegnome
WR core looks to be the best we've seen in a decade
RB looks improved with Tre showing signs of being a "franchise RB"
Defense? Best Rams D I've seen in a decade at least
Yes, they've improved each year Fisher has been the HC, this year no different
 
  • Like
Reactions: badnews and Elmgrovegnome
I have to think worse due to the offensive production we witnessed! And the record, of course! Not improving the offense drug the defense down! Quality O line help is definitely needed in order to get to the Super Bowl!
 
Dodgersrf said:
Bill Parcells also said "If your going to hire a chef, let him pick his own groceries". Well, that didn't quite work out for him. (Referring to his attempt at HC/GM)
Click to expand...
And that was after someone else had drafted Lawrence Taylor and Phil Simms
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dodgersrf
Did I say the Rams were snake-bit? Let's view the evidence from yesterday:

Hill tries to kill the ball and instead it winds up in the hands of a DT. I'd ask you, how many times does that happen?

Then, on a pass to Kendricks, the ball skips out of his hands into the second player nearby and it turns into a pick 6. Granted, stuff like this happens more often than you'd think, but to the Rams it happens regularly. See Patrick Peterson pick 6.

Then the coup de gras, Cunningham is just about to score a TD when Earl Thomas, who did make a great play, slaps the ball out of his hands not 6 inches from the goal line. 6 inches!! That one play demonstrates how close the Rams are to being a good team.
 
fancents86 said:
Lions were the worst team a few years ago. Now they're a playoff contender.
Click to expand...

Were they the worst in NFL history over a 5 year period? Didn't think so. And measuring playoff entrance is the same as measuring wins to guage improvement. By that guage the Panthers are equal to the Patriots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back