[Elvis]

[snackdaddy]

Gonna be interesting. Packers have a bad offense. Rams have a bad defense. Something's gonna give.

[Elvis]

Gonna be interesting. Packers have a bad offense. Rams have a bad defense. Something's gonna give.

The classic easily resisted force vs. a highly movable object…

[ramsman34]

I don’t agree the Rams have a bad defense. They have an inexperienced defense that makes untimely mistakes. So they make bad plays and decisions at times, sometimes at the worst times. They also are not lacking talent. We dont really know that yet. They have athletically talented players. These players are making too many mistakes, and not making enough plays when plays present to be made. That makes them very inexperienced and unseasoned. They may end up being not talented enough and downright bad. We dont really know yet.

What I do know is this; against veteran, proven offenses they are at a big disadvantage. When our offense does not control the ball and the clock, the D gets too many reps which translates into too many opps to make mistakes. Ya, you can call that bad. But they have played well at times - many times. Bad defenses really don’t do that. They get rolled. The Rams D got rolled last week. So did the mostly vet offense. And so too did the STs sans the brand new and inexperienced kicker.

I think the Rams can beat the Packers with either QB. I think with Staff at 80% and, MOST importantly, the Rams really focus on running the ball, play action, solid 6-man + protection, and no fucking empty STs, they have a very good chance to win. This game is waaaaay more on the offense than the D and STs cannot make mistakes - none. The same holds especially true if Ryp gets the start.

[Elvis]

I wouldn't say our defense is bad overall but at times, too many times, the pass defense is terrible.

It's a not run and stop the run league anymore. Back in the day you wanted to force teams to throw against you because that's when you had the advantage. Now you want teams to run. Passing is where most of the damage is done. I almost always think the other team is doing us a favor when they run the ball.

Obviously it's not quite that simplistic but i really think it's more that way than not.

I also agree we can beat GB with either QB but i do worry they will find their passing attack against us...

[Elvis]

Ernest Jones is out, Fuller will wear green dot, Havs and Stafford will be game time decisions:

[Elvis]

[rams74]

Unless McVay has already made his decision to sit Stafford and this stuff about "game-time decision" is just subterfuge, I wouldn't be surprised if Stafford tries to play.

[snackdaddy]

I don’t agree the Rams have a bad defense. They have an inexperienced defense that makes untimely mistakes. So they make bad plays and decisions at times, sometimes at the worst times. They also are not lacking talent. We dont really know that yet. They have athletically talented players. These players are making too many mistakes, and not making enough plays when plays present to be made. That makes them very inexperienced and unseasoned. They may end up being not talented enough and downright bad. We dont really know yet.

What I do know is this; against veteran, proven offenses they are at a big disadvantage. When our offense does not control the ball and the clock, the D gets too many reps which translates into too many opps to make mistakes. Ya, you can call that bad. But they have played well at times - many times. Bad defenses really don’t do that. They get rolled. The Rams D got rolled last week. So did the mostly vet offense. And so too did the STs sans the brand new and inexperienced kicker.

I think the Rams can beat the Packers with either QB. I think with Staff at 80% and, MOST importantly, the Rams really focus on running the ball, play action, solid 6-man + protection, and no fucking empty STs, they have a very good chance to win. This game is waaaaay more on the offense than the D and STs cannot make mistakes - none. The same holds especially true if Ryp gets the start.

Yes, the Rams have athletically talented players. But so does every team in the league. They might be just as athletically gifted as anyone, but compared to most teams I'd say our actual football talent is either inexperienced or deficient.

Like I said, what can you expect when the majority of the defense is day 3 picks and undrafted players? After Donald there is no blue chip talent. Young and Turner might be one day. But they aren't there right now.

They made it clear this was going to be a year to evaluate the young guys. It wasn't hard to read between the lines in that letter Demoff wrote to the fans.

Because they had no first round picks they did the best they could with the draft. 14 draft picks. That is a lot. So maybe its like throwing 14 darts instead of 7 at a dart board. With twice as many darts you increase the odds you'll hit more bulleyes.

And they might. But this may not be the year to reap those rewards. The young guys need more time.

[ramsman34]

Don’t disagree with you or Elvis on this. I think there are a couple guys who will continue to rise. Young, Turner and holding out hope for Mathis. I think Lake and Yeast will continue to improve, especially Lake.

We are a year and some key vet additions away from having a formidable D. But I’d the O does it’s part, this D can perform well enough to win the games against equal and lesser talent.