[bremillard]

Yeah, the pressure to repeat was a huge burden. The 15 offensive lineman including 14 starters had very little to do with it and absolutely no domino effect on the rest of the offense....or entire team for that matter!!! I know, I know. Excuses, excuses!! Instead of blaming the OL injuries, a spin would be....they had almost 3 completely different groups of 5 OL starters, 3 quarterbacks, 9 receivers, 4 TEs and 6 RBs, so how did they only have 5 wins???? Yeah, that pressure sure got to them!!

Every team in the NFL has injuries. That's part of the game and the strength of any team has a great deal to do with depth. The Rams didn't have any so injuries hurt worse. They were ranked 9th in total number of injuries. Philly was 7th. Who won more games? Yes you are always right with a bit of disparaging rhetoric tossed in. Dude...really must suck to feel the need to make points in a vituparetive manner...constantly.

[/zn/]

Every team in the NFL has injuries. That's part of the game and the strength of any team has a great deal to do with depth.

No. That's misleading. Teams can keep winning if they have some injuries scattered through several units.

What happened to the Rams is that they ended up having to play 16 different guys at 4 different spots on ONE unit--the OL. That's not "all teams have injuries." That's an entire crucial unit being badly compromised by multiple injuries.

Heck any OL that has 4 or more simultaneous injuries (starters plus replacements injured) has already compromised its depth. That's bad enough. No team is deep enough to play through more than a dozen simultaneous injuries on the OL. That kind of depth does not exist and has never existed in the NFL.

If it did people could name teams that had multiple simultaneous OL injuries yet could keep playing without a problem.
.

[DaveFromOhio]

No. That's misleading. Teams can keep winning if they have some injuries scattered through several units.

What happened to the Rams is that they ended up having to play 16 different guys at 4 different spots on ONE unit--the OL. That's not "all teams have injuries." That's an entire crucial unit being badly compromised by multiple injuries.

Heck any OL that has 4 or more simultaneous injuries (starters plus replacements injured) has already compromised its depth. That's bad enough. No team is deep enough to play through more than a dozen simultaneous injuries on the OL. That kind of depth does not exist and has never existed in the NFL.

If it did people could name teams that had multiple simultaneous OL injuries yet could keep playing without a problem.
.

With no offense to the great and powerful zn, it's just more excuses. He's right. All teams have injuries. Every teams fan base could say this every year.

It's odd that some fans can't accept the fact that the team stunk last year. With a healthy line and without. They were DOA against Buffalo opening night. They weren't prepared for the season IMO.

Don't forget, SF made it to the championship game in 2021 with guys on the oline that were off the street.

[PARAM]

Every team in the NFL has injuries. That's part of the game and the strength of any team has a great deal to do with depth. The Rams didn't have any so injuries hurt worse. They were ranked 9th in total number of injuries. Philly was 7th. Who won more games? Yes you are always right with a bit of disparaging rhetoric tossed in. Dude...really must suck to feel the need to make points in a vituparetive manner...constantly.

More rankimgs? What is it with some of you all? As Tom Jackson used to say on ESPN "COME ON MAN!!!!". Every team does have injuries and depth matters but....tell me how many teams ever used 14 starters on the OL and the 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th were SOLID depth players. Your claim is utterly ridiculous. But carry on with "that's part of the game" as far as the Rams 2022 season.

[Hacksaw]

"vituparetive"

Well played sir !!

[BobCarl]

Tom Jackson used to say on ESPN "COME ON MAN!!!!".

BobCarl used to say .... "Come on man, it's Preseason" ...

What's the difference between the Rams playing 137 rookies from the 2023 scattershot drafting concept and the Raiders playing their bubble players against the 49er's bubble players?

Answer: Not a GD thing. Preseason w/l doesn't mean squat.

Rams won a SB ... anyone remember? Now we gotta pay (or already paid) the piper. This team will return to its winning ways soon enough

[/zn/]

With no offense to the great and powerful zn, it's just more excuses. He's right. All teams have injuries. Every teams fan base could say this every year.

It's odd that some fans can't accept the fact that the team stunk last year. With a healthy line and without. They were DOA against Buffalo opening night. They weren't prepared for the season IMO.

Don't forget, SF made it to the championship game in 2021 with guys on the oline that were off the street.

2 flaws in your argument.

First, in the 2021 championship game SF started one OL player who was not starting in week 1--Compton played for McClinchey. In 20 games that year, McClinchey played 7 games at ROT, then Moore replaced Mclinchey in 3 games, and then Compton replaced Moore for 10 games starting in week 11. Those are the 9ers only OL injury replacements in 2021, which means that in 20 games they fielded 3 different OL combinations, and the 2 replacements were only at 1 position, right OT. By the time they reached the championship game they had played 9 consecutive games with the same OL (the championship game was their 10th)--Compton being their right OT that whole stretch.

SF fielded 3 different OL combinations in 2021. In 2022 the Rams fielded 13 (an NFL record). SF started 7 different linemen in 2021, and were intact at 4 OL positions all season. Rams started 17 different OL in 2022 (that's counting Hav who played every game) and were intact at only one OL position all season (again, Hav).

So I would say your example of SF in 2021 doesn't hold up.

2nd, the fact that the Rams played poorly in week 1 does not mean they would have performed at that level all season if they had stayed relatively healthy. And actually it wasn't just the OL that started the season not ready (and I said at the time, after the Buffalo game, that they absolutely did not look ready). The entire team was off in the first couple of games. But there is no reason to assume they would have stayed that way all season if they had been relatively healthy (like the 9ers were in 21). What they could not overcome was losing Stafford, Kupp, and Donald along with having to play 16 different OL in 4 spots.

If you believe that's an "excuse," fine, okay, but frankly I never see a good argument backing that kind of claim up. Certainly not when it comes to 2022 anyway. If anyone can name a team that went through even half of the number of OL injuries the Rams did in 2022 and did well in spite of it, I would be interested. So far all you mentioned was an OL that played with 4 of their original starters through 20 games while also playing 3 different right OTs, one of them for 10 consecutive games.

[DaveFromOhio]

2 flaws in your argument.

First, in the 2021 championship game SF started one OL player who was not starting in week 1--Compton played for McClinchey. In 20 games that year, McClinchey played 7 games at ROT, then Moore replaced Mclinchey in 3 games, and then Compton replaced Moore for 10 games starting in week 11. Those are the 9ers only OL injury replacements in 2021, which means that in 20 games they fielded 3 different OL combinations, and the 2 replacements were only at 1 position, right OT. By the time they reached the championship game they had played 9 consecutive games with the same OL (the championship game was their 10th)--Compton being their right OT that whole stretch.

SF fielded 3 different OL combinations in 2021. In 2022 the Rams fielded 13 (an NFL record). SF started 7 different linemen in 2021, and were intact at 4 OL positions all season. Rams started 17 different OL in 2022 (that's counting Hav who played every game) and were intact at only one OL position all season (again, Hav).

So I would say your example of SF in 2021 doesn't hold up.

2nd, the fact that the Rams played poorly in week 1 does not mean they would have performed at that level all season if they had stayed relatively healthy. And actually it wasn't just the OL that started the season not ready (and I said at the time, after the Buffalo game, that they absolutely did not look ready). The entire team was off in the first couple of games. But there is no reason to assume they would have stayed that way all season if they had been relatively healthy (like the 9ers were). What they could not overcome was losing Stafford, Kupp, and Donald along with having to play 16 different OL in 4 spots.

If you believe that's an "excuse," fine, okay, but frankly I never see a good argument backing that kind of claim up. Certainly not when it comes to 2022 anyway. If anyone can name a team that went through even half of the number of OL injuries the Rams did in 2022 and did well in spite of it, I would be interested. So far all you mentioned was an OL that played with 4 of their original starters through 20 games while also playing 3 different right OTs, one of them for 10 consecutive games.

Those are your opinions and you're welcome to them. I don't make excuses. People aren't going to say "the rams had the worst record of any super bowl team the following year, but blame that on injuries." No one remembers the injuries, just the record. Unless your a Rams fan

[/zn/]

Those are your opinions and you're welcome to them. I don't make excuses. People aren't going to say "the rams had the worst record of any super bowl team the following year, but blame that on injuries." No one remembers the injuries, just the record. Unless your a Rams fan

See I'm not interested in what "people remember" around the league. I'm just interested in talking to other Rams fans about what did happen. To me it's as simple as just knowing your team.

I have never seen a team have devastating, extensive, simultaneouos, multiple OL injuries and do well. I regard that as a fact of NFL history. Whenever I ask people for examples of teams that did do well under those circumstances, I never get a legit example that holds up.

Since Rams fans know that happened in 22, whether the fans of any other team know it or not doesn't concern me. I think as Rams fans who know their team, we can be honest with each other about the kind of damage that kind of OL collapse invariably causes.

There's nothing wrong with honest diagnosis.

The fact that the team started slow and didn't seem ready is another, different issue. I think part of it is that Stafford wasn't really healthy, the running game went sour, and they did not do a very good job as a team (coaches included) of overcoming their super bowl victory sickness. But I also think if they stayed relatively healthy, they could have come out of that poor start (and yes that part of it is an opinion).

...

[DaveFromOhio]

See I'm not interested in what "people remember" around the league. I'm just interested in talking to other Rams fans about what did happen. To me it's as simple as just knowing your team.

I have never seen a team have devastating, extensive, simultaneouos, multiple OL injuries and do well. I regard that as a fact of NFL history. Whenever I ask people for examples of teams that did do well under those circumstances, I never get a legit example that holds up.

Since Rams fans know that happened in 22, whether the fans of any other team know it or not doesn't concern me. I think as Rams fans who know their team, we can be honest with each other about the kind of damage that kind of OL collapse always causes.

There's nothing wrong with honest diagnosis.

The fact that the team started slow and didn't seem ready is another, different issue. I think part of it is that Stafford wasn't really healthy, the running game went sour, and they did not do a very good job as a team (coaches included) of overcoming their super bowl victory sickness. But I also think if they stayed relatively healthy, they could have come out of that poor start (and yes that part of it is an opinion).

...

Fair enough. Agree to disagree. You make some good points tho.