[aeneas1]

came across an article recently, in the new york times sports section of all places iirc, that attempted to argue on fisher's behalf, that attempted to make excuses for him and his 5 years with the rams, by pointing out that the rams have faced some of the league's toughest schedules each year fish has been head coach, due in large part to being trapped in what has been the very competitive nfc west.

and it's true, i looked it up, in fact from 2012 through last weekend no team has faced more teams with a winning record than the rams - the rams have faced 42 such teams while the rest of the league has faced an average of 33.

and things don't typically go well for teams when they face winners - only the seahawks, patriots, broncos and steeelers have a cumulative winning record against opponents with a winning record for the 2012-2016 stretch, while the other 28 teams in league have a losing record - the average nfl win percentage vs teams with a winning record is just .318, or roughly 5-11.

and that's exactly how the rams have fared vs teams with a winning record under fish, they're right around the league average for the 2012-2016 stretch, 13-28-1 (.321.).

but here's the rub, something the article failed to mention - when given the opportunity to feast on the league's lesser teams, teams without a winning record, the rams have failed, they rank 24th in win percentage against such teams dating back to 2012, barely above .500, while the rest of the league has averaged a hefty .641 win percentage, the rough equivalent of a 10-6 record.

all told, only 6 teams have failed to muster a cumulative winning record vs teams without a winning record dating back to 2012 - facing such teams is an opportunity to make a move, to offset losses vs opponents with winning records, to flex some muscle, but the rams haven't come close to dominating these opponents.

in fact had the rams only faced teams without a winning record since fish has been head coach, their average w/l record per season would be just 8.5 - 7.5 based on the lousy .529 win percentage they've booked against such teams since 2012.

the haves and have nots:

[Hacksaw]

Rotten luck and our division might have something to do with that.

We are ripe to bust out but the mood in the room is dark.

[RedAlice]

Our division has something to do with that.

We are ripe to bust out but the mood in the room is dark.

This year our division was ripe for Rams to take it over, for the first time in awhile.

I am beyond sick of stupid excuses. They have ripened to rotten.

[Hacksaw]

This year our division was ripe for Rams to take it over, for the first time in awhile.

I am beyond sick of stupid excuses. They have ripened to rotten.

So true. We would have been in a dog fight with the Hawks for the West, but with some more points and first downs, we could be there.

What ever the Rams do this off-season, they must acquire a top receiver (or 2) in FA and/or the draft. Britt and Quick aren't gettin' er done.

[PARAM]

Interesting numbers

And playing in what has been the toughest division in the NFC....up until this year.....Fisher's Rams are 13-13-1 with 3 divisional games left to play this year. Though it's not more than we might expect from Fisher, given his penchant for being around .500, it makes me wonder how bad their record is against teams with winning records OUTSIDE of the division.

5-4 against Seattle
5-4 against Arizona
3-5-1 vs S.F.

Against those 3 in years they posted winning records the Rams are 9-10-1 so against winning teams outside the division they are 4-18. I'm sure that might change if it were "teams with winning records on the day they played" but not much.

[aeneas1]

Rotten luck and our division might have something to do with that.

We are ripe to bust out but the mood in the room is dark.

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

the thing is tho, the rams have sucked against weaker teams, the teams without winning records, the bread and butter that vermeil pointed to, their cumulative win percentage against teams without a winning is just .529 since fisher has been the head coach, only 8 teams have fared worse, the rest of the league has average a .641 (11-5) win percentage against teams without winning records.

so, as i mentioned above, even if the rams had played schedules made up of only teams without winning records, they would have only managed an 8.5-7.5 record given their cumulative win percentage against such teams. for those counting at home, that blows big time, and negates the tough schedule excuse for fisher as far as i'm concerned.

[dieterbrock]

Of course what skews the numbers is that the Rams don't get to play the Rams 2x per year like Seattle, San Fran and Arizona do
Otherwise they all play the same schedule.
Because Fisher cant post a winning record skews the whole thing

[St. Loser Fan]

Of course what skews the numbers is that the Rams don't get to play the Rams 2x per year like Seattle, San Fran and Arizona do
Otherwise they all play the same schedule.
Because Fisher cant post a winning record skews the whole thing

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.

[snackdaddy]

This year it felt like we had the easiest schedule going into those games. A lot of winnable games. But this year's team also feels like the weakest in Fisher's 5 years. Unless a coach starts out winning shouldn't the team be a little better by year 5?

[St. Loser Fan]

I know someone tried to use the "Rams schedule too hard" excuse for them to stay in St. Louis. Even then I called "bullshit!".