[Elvis]

If the Rams were to end up 7-9, that would mean we lost our last 7 games in a row and i doubt many, if any, of us would be feeling good about the team in a scenario like that.

But, that ain't happening...

[aeneas1]

If the Rams were to end up 7-9, that would mean we lost our last 7 games in a row and i doubt many, if any, of us would be feeling good about the team in a scenario like that.

But, that ain't happening...

yeah, in the last 20 years only 15 teams have gone 0-8 in their final 8 games, and their average record prior to going 0-8 was 3-5, i.e. they weren't very good teams to begin with, in fact only 1 of these 15 teams, the 2001 chargers, owned a winning record before going 0-8, they started 5-3.

more numbers:

again, in the last 20 years, 83% of the teams that started the year 7-3 made the post season - only 35% of these teams lost their next game to drop to 7-4 while 65% won their next game to move to 8-3.

of the 17% that started the year 7-3 but didn't make the post season, 73% lost their next game to drop to 7-4 while only 26% won their game to move to 8-3. moral of the story? let's move to 8-3!

[max]

IMHO, I don't see Seattle finishing 9-7 though. The Rams and Eagles could beat them. I don't think Jacksonville, Dallas, Arizona or SF do. I also don't see the Rams finishing less than 10-6. We could lose to the Saints, Eagles and Seahawks (and I'm not suggesting we WILL) but we should beat Tennessee, Arizona and SF. The division is the big prize, earning a home playoff game but if we are to prioritize the season, it's:

Finish above .500
Earn a playoff berth
Earn a division title
Earn a bye
Earn homefield throughout

Currently, none are "out of the question". Realistically, the last two might be out of the question. On the other hand, the first three are attainable. The first two are looking like reality with the division title a good possibility.

Regardless of what goals we eventually attain, it's quite a jump from 4-12 isn't it?

Outside of beating the Rams when the Rams turned the ball over 5 times, the Hawks have not beaten one team with a winning record.

They lost to the Packers, Titans, Skins, and Falcons.

They beat the Cards, Niners, Rams, Giants, Colts, Texans.

The Hawks are also crippled in the secondary now.

Why should we expect them to suddenly be better, why not expect them to be worse?

[max]

of the 17% that started the year 7-3 but didn't make the post season, 73% lost their next game to drop to 7-4 while only 26% won their game to move to 8-3. moral of the story? let's move to 8-3!

If the Rams beat the Saints, I believe that will propel them to the Western division title.

If they beat the Saints, they should dominate a Cards team that is playing out the string. They should also have little trouble with a Niners team in the season finale in LA. One more win from Eagles, Hawks, or Titans will get them to 11 wins.

[aeneas1]

Outside of beating the Rams when the Rams turned the ball over 5 times, the Hawks have not beaten one team with a winning record.

They lost to the Packers, Titans, Skins, and Falcons.

They beat the Cards, Niners, Rams, Giants, Colts, Texans.

The Hawks are also crippled in the secondary now.

Why should we expect them to suddenly be better, why not expect them to be worse?

i'd feel better if that didn't describe the rams as well... both the rams and seattle are 1-2 against teams with a winning record, while the rams are 1 game better than seattle vs teams with losing records.

looking at the remaining schedule, the rams face 4 more teams with a winning record, seattle 3, i'd like to see the rams fare better against such teams, starting this weekend.

[max]

i'd feel better if that didn't describe the rams as well... both the rams and seattle are 1-2 against teams with a winning record, while the rams are 1 game better than seattle vs teams with losing records.

looking at the remaining schedule, the rams face 4 more teams with a winning record, seattle 3, i'd like to see the rams fare better against such teams, starting this weekend.

It does describe the Rams.

Thats why I place a lot on this Saints game.

But if we are just talking about the Hawks, then I think 10 wins is their limit with 9 wins more likely. Their defense has taken a huge hit losing 3 great players on defense for the season. (Avril, Chancellor, Sherman). They have no running game at all. Wilson will have to carry that team on his back for 6 more games. Thats a lot of stress and exposure to injury.

[PARAM]

Please excuse my inability to perform addition/subtraction at the moment, but I'm still a little drunk from Turkey. But given the above, doesn't this put both Seahags/Rams at 10-6? And with the Seahags beating us twice, we end up as a Wildcard, assuming the rest of the NFC plays out in our favor. So, this above scenario does not guarantee a playoff spot, no?

Yeah, if we finish 10-6, that doesn't guarantee us anything. To end up in a tie with somebody other than Seattle, Dallas would have to go 5-0 (not gonna happen), Detroit would have to go 4-1 (could happen but I doubt it) and Atlanta would have to go 4-2 (that could also happen but I hope not because they have just 1 conference loss).

The one way we really help ourselves towards winning the division is beat Seattle straight up. That eliminates the two win advantage for them. So it goes to division record. We have 1 loss, we'd give them 1 (if we beat Arizona and SF and they beat Arizona). On to conference record. We have 3 losses, they would have 4 losses. They play one AFC team, as we do the rest of the way, Jacksonville, which is a loss that wouldn't hurt them as much as a conference loss. I'd say if I were to pick a team we can lose to and not have it hurt us as much is Tennessee. But that's getting the cart waaaaay ahead of the horse.

As the old saying goes, don't worry about what the other teams are doing and just take care of your own business.

[aeneas1]

It does describe the Rams.

Thats why I place a lot on this Saints game.

But if we are just talking about the Hawks, then I think 10 wins is their limit with 9 wins more likely. Their defense has taken a huge hit losing 3 great players on defense for the season. (Avril, Chancellor, Sherman). They have no running game at all. Wilson will have to carry that team on his back for 6 more games. Thats a lot of stress and exposure to injury.

agree about the seahawks, but what's a bit worrisome to me is that they've had zero oline and running game all year, have played without all-pro avril for most of the year, and they're just 1 game worse than the rams... hopefully a completely depleted secondary will prove too much to overcome.

in other news, how about the 1999 rams? they played one of the softest regular season schedules of the past 30 years, faced only 2 teams that made the postseason, lost them both, and only 1 team with a winning record, lost... rallied in the postseason tho!

[Ramsalltheway]

I think the Rams can finish the RS 11-5. Seattle of course will be putting pressure right behind them. Bad game against Vikings, hopefully Rams play a much better game against NO. I have much confidence Sean McVay will have the Rams playing a better game this Sunday.

[Elvis]

I think the Rams can finish the RS 11-5. Seattle of course will be putting pressure right behind them. Bad game against Vikings, hopefully Rams play a much better game against NO. I have much confidence Sean McVay will have the Rams playing a better game this Sunday.

Welcome aboard.

I'm feeling 11-5 too but we'll see.

I was pretty worried after the Seattle loss, really felt like a game that could put the Rams on a bad trajectory but instead they responded with a win in Jacksonville on the way to a 4 game winning streak.

So i like our ability to move on after a loss...