Anonymous
Guest
RamFan503 said:I wouldn't expect a player to say they didn't belong in ANY game - quite the opposite. Your opinion is that we had the talent to contend. I can accept that. I am a total homer so I tend to lean that way most of the time. I'm not even saying I agree with ZN's take on the '10 team. I just agree with what he said in defending his position. We can all see things like what went on in that season differently. I think in most cases it is a fine line between having the talent to contend and being an also ran. We definitely had some weaknesses on that team and with that staff. Does that mean I didn't think we should have won that Seattle game? Hell no. But that's my opinion. His is that we actually performed better that season than he thought we realistically should have given the talent level that he saw. I'm cool with that too.
Yeah the core of my point was, there was just going to be different opinions of the final game in 2010 cause there were different opinions of what went wrong in that game AND where the Rams even stood in 2010. I was naturally disappointed with the loss but it wasn't significant to me and did not mean anything to me because the way I saw the season, that loss did not come as shocking news.
They had a couple of corners, and one safety, and a middle linebacker, an old but heady DE on one side and a young and growing DE on the other. Robbins had one good year that season in between 2 bad ones (age, injuries). The OL had 2 young tackles. After losing Avery and Clayton they had nothing at receiver--other than Amendola as a role player. Robinson was hobbled all year, though now and then he flashed, and DX could only play in 7 games and was only productive in 3 (Seattle was not one of them). Every game DX was productive in, they won. (SD, Denver, SF home game---14 receptions, 266 yards in those games, 6 receptions and 40 yards in the other 4). Rams only won one game where DX played but was not productive.
Jackson was hobbled all year and had the worst YPC of his career.
And Bradford was a rookie.
I didn't know in advance of the season that DX would matter in a couple of games, and I didn't know Clayton would get hurt.
But they looked like a team that was too young.
When I watched them all year, they won for a couple of good reasons, but it exceeded expectations.
The Seattle game got down to Bradford clicking with the receivers, cause Seattle conceded the run. (They also mind-messed with Bradford and kept lining up in ways designed to make him audible out of runs.)
Bradford didn't click with the receivers, so they lost. (In that game I put that on the receivers.)
What that game told me was that they needed a couple of consistent receivers, they needed experience on the OL, they needed some bodies on the defense. But then I knew that before the game.
So what I have just said.
That that is my opinion of what happened.
I know there will be different opinions of what happened.
At the end of the day they will all just be opinions. One game is too little to draw a lot from anyway.