[PARAM]

If you are playing teams better than you injuries tend to be more frequent. That's why lesser quality college teams are paid to play out of conference powerhouses.

In college, absolutely. It's not that they're better. They're bigger, faster and stronger. So are you really trying to compare the gulph between FBS schools and division 2 and 3 to teams in the NFL? Come on man. Those gaps don't exist in the NFL.

[/zn/]

Good ole hindsight. Always 20/20. "What might have been if"...again useless banter.

It's just as useless to pretend you know they would never have rebounded from the first couple of games but for the injuries. And you are pretending that you "know" that.

All I know is that no team has ever had injuries like that, especially OL injuries, and played well. No NFL team has ever had depth like that.

And no one is playing a "what if" game. Just posting honest analysis. The question is, why did they do poorly in 2022? Honest analysis says that if we want to answer that, it's just neglectful and in fact not honest analysis if we ignore massive injuries like they had, especially to the OL. We know from NFL history that that is always a decisive factor. If it weren't you could name me all the teams that thrived in spite of OL injuries that massive.

And the idea that if you're playing better teams injuries are more frequent is just made-up, and unsupported. Honestly. You can't back that with anything except your own personal will to just nakedly assert it. Look at the old Rams. They had nothing in 97 like the injuries they did in 2000, but in 2000 they were a clearly superior team compared to most of the league, which is absolutly not true of 97.

...

[PARAM]

It's just as useless to pretend you know they would never have rebounded from the first couple of games but for the injuries. And you are pretending that you "know" that.

All I know is that no team has ever had injuries like that, especially OL injuries, and played well. No NFL team has ever had depth like that.

And no one is playing a "what if" game. Just posting honest analysis. The question is, why did they do poorly in 2022? Honest analysis says that if we want to answer that, it's just neglectful and in fact not honest analysis if we ignore massive injuries like they had, especially to the OL. We know from NFL history that that is always a decisive factor. If it weren't you could name me all the teams that thrived in spite of OL injuries that massive.

And the idea that if you're playing better teams injuries are more frequent is just made-up, and unsupported. Honestly. You can't back that with anything except your own personal will to just nakedly assert it. Look at the old Rams. They had nothing in 97 like the injuries they did in 2000, but in 2000 they were a clearly superior team compared to most of the league, which is absolutly not true of 97.

...

You expect honesty? One man's truth is another man's blasphemous lie. The best thing to do is let it pass, like a bad hangover. As Ramsman34 once said, "In a couple weeks 2022 is dead and gone." With success comes new Ram fans out of the woodwork, as the naysayers, antagonists and such become the biggest Ram fans on the planet......once again. Or they move onto a baseball forum, where they can deride fans for another 5 or 6 months.

[/zn/]

You expect honesty? One man's truth is another man's blasphemous lie.

No, I disagree fwiw, some things are demonstrably true regardless of opinion. The term "honestly" used colloquially the way I did there basically means "frankly," or "to be honest." I was just reacting to the claim that weaker NFL teams get more injuries when playing better teams. I don't think anyone can find any valid stats to support that. I agree with you, that might be a factor in college when clearly bigger, faster, stronger high recruitment status teams play lesser college teams that don't have the same physical talent. But there's no gap like that in the NFL.

[Elvis]

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.

This is true. We went into the SB without Robert Woods, Tyler Higbee, there was the Desean Jackson debacle, Tutu didn't contribute anything, then lost OBJ and Blanton during the game but found a way to keep moving the ball and won.

But i think what happened to the Oline last year goes beyond "every team in the NFL has injuries." Every team goes into the season carrying what, 8, 9 Oline? No team is prepared for the amount of Oline injuries the Rams had. Except for Havs they were utterly decimated, had nothing to do with depth. They were pulling guys off of the street.

Yeah they played badly against Buffalo but that was one game. We'll never know what adjustments they would have made, if they'd have gotten their act together but i think it's a very real possibility they would have.

Instead they were just trying to survive, scrambling from week to week with a makeshift line, many of whom barely knew the playbook.

Now if you want to argue McVay did a shitty job in that situation, that he should've been better at scrambling, been able to put something more credible out there, i won't argue that, maybe.

But still, the amount of injuries the Oline had was way past what any team prepares for or has the depth to account for...

[/zn/]

This is true. We went into the SB without Robert Woods, Tyler Higbee, there was the Desean Jackson debacle, Tutu didn't contribute anything, then lost OBJ and Blanton during the game but found a way to keep moving the ball and won.

But i think what happened to the Oline last year goes beyond "every team in the NFL has injuries." Every team goes into the season carrying what, 8, 9 Oline? No team is prepared for the amount of Oline injuries the Rams had. Except for Havs they were utterly decimated, had nothing to do with depth. They were pulling guys off of the street.

Yeah they played badly against Buffalo but that was one game. We'll never know what adjustments they would have made, if they'd have gotten their act together but i think it's a very real possibility they would have.

Instead they were just trying to survive, scrambling from week to week with a makeshift line, many of whom barely knew the playbook.

Now if you want to argue McVay did a shitty job in that situation, that he should've been better at scrambling, been able to put something more credible out there, i won't argue that, maybe.

But still, the amount of injuries the Oline had was way past what any team prepares for or has the depth to account for...

'
Yeah the "all teams have injuries" mantra just doesn't apply sometimes. Not all teams have multiple, extensive, long term injuries that wipe out a key unit and as a direct result diminish the effectiveness of the entire team.

And if you want to damage a team's chances, wiping out their OL is one highly effective way to do that. Not talking about an OL injury here or there, most teams can handle that (which is why when I talk about an OL I always say they'll be fine if they're relatively healthy, not just plain "healthy").

Just to put the obvious down in black and white, when your OL is devastated by multiple extensive injuries, the unit you field does not have the timing and cohesion and communication you need. It not only has an effect on blocking, it has an effect on the qb, who if he's typical starts pressing instead of trusting the play, and it has an effect on playcalling, because you can't count on the MASH unit to do everything and you have to take its limitations into consideration. Plus of course not every lineman on every team is equally talented. Your back-ups are young and working on their game or they're older vets who no one will pay to be a starter anymore (or were always journeymen). If every team carried 9 OL, you can bet that there just aren't 288 equally good OL in the league. Just as there aren't 64 winning, mature, starting caliber qbs in the league. So going to multiple replacements just plain means a drop in quality.

[actionjack]

This is true. We went into the SB without Robert Woods, Tyler Higbee, there was the Desean Jackson debacle, Tutu didn't contribute anything, then lost OBJ and Blanton during the game but found a way to keep moving the ball and won.

But i think what happened to the Oline last year goes beyond "every team in the NFL has injuries." Every team goes into the season carrying what, 8, 9 Oline? No team is prepared for the amount of Oline injuries the Rams had. Except for Havs they were utterly decimated, had nothing to do with depth. They were pulling guys off of the street.

Yeah they played badly against Buffalo but that was one game. We'll never know what adjustments they would have made, if they'd have gotten their act together but i think it's a very real possibility they would have.

Instead they were just trying to survive, scrambling from week to week with a makeshift line, many of whom barely knew the playbook.

Now if you want to argue McVay did a shitty job in that situation, that he should've been better at scrambling, been able to put something more credible out there, i won't argue that, maybe.

But still, the amount of injuries the Oline had was way past what any team prepares for or has the depth to account for...

Good post Elvis...

Oline decimated = Stafford hurt = Kupp hurt with high throw from backup QB (and didnt have Van for most of the season)

Lets be honest if the Super Bowl went much longer the Bengals probably would have won, somehow the Rams were able to put one drive to get the lead and let the defense finish it.
If OBJ doesnt get hurt we win by two TD's. Injuries do matter.

[snackdaddy]

I appreciate the glass half full guys. I was a glass half full guy since 2017. But this year feels different. I've turned into a glass half empty guy. I look at all the moves, and the moves they didn't make during the offseason. I see Demoff's letter. While trying to say all the right things it was pretty clear he was trying to prepare everyone for this season.

If I'm a glass half full guy I say things like we got the big 3. Stafford, Kupp and Donald. We have some exciting young players. Avila looks like the real deal. Akers could be a beast. Jefferson might be ready for that breakout year. Tutu is a legit deep threat. Stafford is healthier than he's been in a while. The offense could be a top 5 offense again.

But then the glass half empty guy says, boy, that pass rush is anemic. Quarterbacks are gonna pick that defense apart if they can sit there all day till someone gets open. Donald is gonna be double and triple teamed all year basically negating his impact. The run defense can have some big holes in it sometimes. And our depth on both sides is razor thin.

Is it one of those scenarios? Or somewhere in between? The pundits aren't giving us much of a chance. How right are they? If I had to put money on it, I'd probably bet the pundits are closer to being right than they are wrong.

All we can do is follow them all year and hope for the best. Something we do every year whether they're a good team or a bad team.

[rams74]

The pundits aren't giving us much of a chance. How right are they?

Well, they were wrong last year, weren't they? Way, way wrong.

[/zn/]

Just to put the obvious down in black and white, when your OL is devastated by multiple extensive injuries, the unit you field does not have the timing and cohesion and communication you need. It not only has an effect on blocking, it has an effect on the qb, who if he's typical starts pressing instead of trusting the play, and it has an effect on playcalling, because you can't count on the MASH unit to do everything and you have to take its limitations into consideration. Plus of course not every lineman on every team is equally talented. Your back-ups are young and working on their game or they're older vets who no one will pay to be a starter anymore (or were always journeymen). If every team carried 9 OL, you can bet that there just aren't 288 equally good OL in the league. Just as there aren't 64 winning, mature, starting caliber qbs in the league. So going to multiple replacements just plain means a drop in quality.

And of course, though I didn't mention it, one issue with a massively beat up OL (beat up to the point where it can't play effectively) is injuries to the qb.

Heres Rodrigue from this article: https://theathletic.com/4799764/2023/08 ... -problems/

Football is cruel. It will hurt you if it can. It brutalized Stafford last season to the tune of 29 sacks, 63 hits, two trips to the concussion protocol and one bruised spinal cord, all in just nine games.

So......that's a lot of qb damage.