[RedAlice]

Exactly. The NFL is down to one game as strength of schedule. That's why we play the Tampa pretty much every year: they also finish dead last in their division.

You already forgot that Rams didn't finish "dead last in their division" the very last year they were in St. Louis? My god man are you slipping. I thought you had all StL facts as worshipped tattoos on you.

The Eagles are happy you are wrong.

[aeneas1]

You already forgot that Rams didn't finish "dead last in their division" the very last year they were in St. Louis? My god man are you slipping. I thought you had all StL facts as worshipped tattoos on you.

The Eagles are happy you are wrong.

not to mention that's not how the league puts together schedules....

[Hacksaw]

Parity is a lost art, but I doubt the schedule is what happened to the Rams.
The last two (and hopefully not the next) games have been against very tough opponents and we weren't in them for more than a minute.
An awful start for Goff, Fisher style. Throw the babe in with the Lions. I almost expect to hear an "I told you so" coming.

[dieterbrock]

Seattle has an easier schedule than the Rams because they play the Rams 2x per year while the Rams play Seattle 2x....

[aeneas1]

Seattle has an easier schedule than the Rams because they play the Rams 2x per year while the Rams play Seattle 2x....

yep, but look at how seattle has fared vs teams with winning records (20-12 .625), the highest winning percentage against winning teams since fish has been the rams head coach, and a whopping 34-9 (.784) against teams with non-winning records... makes it hard to make the claim that seattle's success is due to getting to play losers like the rams and niners twice a year, just like it's hard to make the claim that the rams have sucked because they've had to play nfc west toughies, when their record against teams with non-winning records is so poor, barely above .500, bottom 3rd of the league.

[dieterbrock]

yep, but look at how seattle has fared vs teams with winning records (20-12 .625), the highest winning percentage against winning teams since fish has been the rams head coach, and a whopping 34-9 (.784) against teams with non-winning records... makes it hard to make the claim that seattle's success is due to getting to play losers like the rams and niners twice a year, just like it's hard to make the claim that the rams have sucked because they've had to play nfc west toughies, when their record against teams with non-winning records is so poor, barely above .500, bottom 3rd of the league.

No doubt.
Strength of schedule argument drives me nuts, and only is applicable when comparing winning teams IMO. Meaning a team could be a soft 11-5 or a tough 10-6. Either way they are both winning teams. When teams are losing teams, strength of schedule excuse is just whining.

49ers are 2-14 in their last 16, how's that strength of schedule working out for the Rams, AKA the 2 in that 49ers record....

[ramsman34]

yep, but look at how seattle has fared vs teams with winning records (20-12 .625), the highest winning percentage against winning teams since fish has been the rams head coach, and a whopping 34-9 (.784) against teams with non-winning records... makes it hard to make the claim that seattle's success is due to getting to play losers like the rams and niners twice a year, just like it's hard to make the claim that the rams have sucked because they've had to play nfc west toughies, when their record against teams with non-winning records is so poor, barely above .500, bottom 3rd of the league.

Not too mention, and I am sure you have the stats A, look how well the Rams have fared against tier divisional opponents. And they can't beat up on teams as bad or close to as bad as they are? I get losing to the upper echelon, but AZ and SEA have been in that upper echelon and we are probably .500 or better against them under Fish. It seems like he can only beat those two teams semi-consistently and then gets a smattering of wins here and there against everyone else.

He has to go.

[Elvis]

it is bad luck, vermeil always pointed to strength of schedule as a must for success, i.e. a weaker strrength of schedule.

One of my favorite Dick Vermeil quotes, just because it's so funny:

"The No. 1 criteria in winning in the NFL is how many losing teams you play," Vermeil said. "The Tampa Bay Buccaneers played eight teams that had losing records at the end of the season. The Bucs won all eight. In the year we won the Super Bow in St. Louis, we played 11 losing teams. In the last five years, the five world champions played a total of 45 games against losing teams and beat 43 of them. If you are going to win the Super Bowl, you've got to keep playing losing teams."

[aeneas1]

One of my favorite Dick Vermeil quotes, just because it's so funny:

"The No. 1 criteria in winning in the NFL is how many losing teams you play," Vermeil said. "The Tampa Bay Buccaneers played eight teams that had losing records at the end of the season. The Bucs won all eight. In the year we won the Super Bow in St. Louis, we played 11 losing teams. In the last five years, the five world champions played a total of 45 games against losing teams and beat 43 of them. If you are going to win the Super Bowl, you've got to keep playing losing teams."

that's a real yogi berra-ism right there, ha ha....

but speaking of the 1999 rams, during the regular season they faced only 1 team with a winning record, and lost, and faced only 2 teams that made the postseason, and lost both.... against teams that didn't have a winning record, the rams were 13-1 and won by an average score of 34-13, against the 2 teams that made the postseason, the rams were 0-2 and lost by an average score of 24-28... for the championship game and the super bowl, the rams won by an average score of 17-11, and by an average score of 21-14 for the three postseason games.. also, fwiw, since 1999 no teams has faced a softer strength of schedule, based on the srs strength of schedule rating system (simple rating system), than the 1999 rams.

re vermeil, martz showed him the light, after the forced union vermeil would often point to yards per pass attempt gained and allowed as the most meaningful stats available.

[dieterbrock]

re vermeil, martz showed him the light, after the forced union vermeil would often point to yards per pass attempt gained and allowed as the most meaningful stats available.

IIRC, (and I learned this from you) didn't Martz impart the net YPA on Vermeil?