[actionjack]

Yet my bet is that AD, MS, CK, and etc. don't go around lamenting a "lost year." They have better character than that. They know they're starting a lot of 4th, 3rd, and 2nd year players (plus a couple of rookies) and they instinctively lead them by example. Always competitive.

I don't care if the playoffs "aren't happening" though losing to GB does not technically eliminate them. I've been a Rams fans since the 70s, which means I was on board in the 90s and in 2007-2011. This year is nowhere near as bad as the worst of those years. Not even remotely.

And besides, who here said before the season that this was a playoff year? We knew they deliberately chose to take the big dead money hit in 23 and use this year to develop a team for 2024. We all knew that by last February.

I have been a Ram fan since Pat Haden days. I have been through it all as a Ram fan. I also expected this to be a down year after the Rams decided to have this soft rebuild. However out of training camp the team team including McVay thought they were a playoff team according to the Athletic.


My main bone of contention is.. was it smart to rebuild a good portion of roster instead of keeping most of it together or rebooting all of it. IMO good go great QB’s are hard to find, we have one now , but we have him for a limited time. I don’t like sacrificing one of his few remaining years for hope that we compete next year or the year after.

Will see how it plays out, but food for thought. Our offense is mostly intact and was supposed to carry the team this season and they have woefully underperformed . Why should it be better next year or the year after?

[bremillard]

The Green Bay game showed me all that I needed to see. This team stinks from top to bottom. Green Bay is awful. The Rams are worse. Season is officially over for any post season hopes.

[ramsman34]

I wonder how much different it looks with Staff, Havs, and E Jones. Certainly didn’t miss DK.

[/zn/]

I have been a Ram fan since Pat Haden days. I have been through it all as a Ram fan. I also expected this to be a down year after the Rams decided to have this soft rebuild. However out of training camp the team team including McVay thought they were a playoff team according to the Athletic.


My main bone of contention is.. was it smart to rebuild a good portion of roster instead of keeping most of it together or rebooting all of it. IMO good go great QB’s are hard to find, we have one now , but we have him for a limited time. I don’t like sacrificing one of his few remaining years for hope that we compete next year or the year after.

Will see how it plays out, but food for thought. Our offense is mostly intact and was supposed to carry the team this season and they have woefully underperformed . Why should it be better next year or the year after?

Yeah I see all of it a bit differently on some points and completely differently on other points.

Was it smart to sacrifice 23 for 24? Sure why not. Depends on whether sitting through 23 is something one can or can't bear. We've seen complete reboots before that didn't work. Plus I just don't see the point in doing that--they still have Stafford and Donald with good years left in them and those are guys you not only build a team around, you build an entire team identity around. Should they have just gone with the norm in 23 and not taken the dead money hit? If they did that, it looks like they would have only been putting off a reckoning later.

As for the remainder of the season? I don’t see them beating Cleveland or Baltimore even with Stafford.

With Stafford they are in and can win the Seattle, Arizona, Washington, New Orleans, and NYG games.

If healthy they are capable of upsetting SF.

My view? They could end up anywhere from 6-11 to 9-8.

Is that okay? Sure, because the way I see it, it's all development for 24. Like (and we didn't know it at the time) 98 was for 99.

Odds are very much against a playoff season but for me anyway--and just speaking solely for myself--this season is just plain not like going through the 90s or 2007-2011. We’re watching them develop into a team for 2024, and to me that takes the sting off of losing. They have some good players on both sides of the ball and some promising rookies and as we know they have money and picks in 24...and from what I am hearing 24 is a loaded draft.

I am not one those despairing ones who are now flooding twitter with “time for a coaching change?” tweets.

[bremillard]

After the last 2 stinkers the coaching change will be a McVay decision.

[ramsww]

By the time the kids mature to starters barring injuries and we add enough quality to upgrade O & D, Stafford, Kupp, Higbee and Donald will be gone. I’ve seen people post here “it takes 3 years to judge a draft”. Well we can see Avila, Nacua, Young, and Turner are off to a great start and that IS big but Kendricks and Durant took huge steps backwards and this defense is 2 years away from even being competitive while the Offense ages before our eyes. Sadly, my concerns about not getting any semblance of a b/u QB, no Edge depth, not enough Oline, no impact RB, and letting ALL our Defensive starters walk resulted in 3-6. Yup, just about what we expected.

[snackdaddy]

After the last 2 stinkers the coaching change will be a McVay decision.

There really is no point in changing coaches at this point. The coaching is not the problem. This is a very talent deficient team. There will be more losses. The time to evaluate is after the season. Chances are they will be drafting in the top ten. Possibly even top 5.

[actionjack]

Yeah I see all of it a bit differently on some points and completely differently on other points.

Was it smart to sacrifice 23 for 24? Sure why not. Depends on whether sitting through 23 is something one can or can't bear. We've seen complete reboots before that didn't work. Plus I just don't see the point in doing that--they still have Stafford and Donald with good years left in them and those are guys you not only build a team around, you build an entire team identity around. Should they have just gone with the norm in 23 and not taken the dead money hit? If they did that, it looks like they would have only been putting off a reckoning later.



As for the remainder of the season? I don’t see them beating Cleveland or Baltimore even with Stafford.

With Stafford they are in and can win the Seattle, Arizona, Washington, New Orleans, and NYG games.

If healthy they are capable of upsetting SF.

My view? They could end up anywhere from 6-11 to 9-8.

Is that okay? Sure, because the way I see it, it's all development for 24. Like (and we didn't know it at the time) 98 was for 99.

Odds are very much against a playoff season but for me anyway--and just speaking solely for myself--this season is just plain not like going through the 90s or 2007-2011. We’re watching them develop into a team for 2024, and to me that takes the sting off of losing. They have some good players on both sides of the ball and some promising rookies and as we know they have money and picks in 24...and from what I am hearing 24 is a loaded draft.

I am not one those despairing ones who are now flooding twitter with “time for a coaching change?” tweets.

IMO 9-8 went out the window yesterday, yes the Rams are capable of beating those teams with a healthy Stafford, but that is asking a ton for team that has shown zero consistency.If Stafford is able to play (and return to performance) I could see 3-4 more wins, if he isnt able to play against Seattle and we lose, then you play Ryp the rest of the way and we finish with maybe 1 more win and get a top 5 pick.

We disagree on the premise. You think a soft reboot is fine. I think a soft reboot makes no sense as your foundation wont be around (or wont be much of a factor) when the time is most likely competitive in 2025.

[PARAM]

IMO 9-8 went out the window yesterday, yes the Rams are capable of beating those teams with a healthy Stafford, but that is asking a ton for team that has shown zero consistency.If Stafford is able to play (and return to performance) I could see 3-4 more wins, if he isnt able to play against Seattle and we lose, then you play Ryp the rest of the way and we finish with maybe 1 more win and get a top 5 pick.

We disagree on the premise. You think a soft reboot is fine. I think a soft reboot makes no sense as your foundation wont be around (or wont be much of a factor) when the time is most likely competitive in 2025.

Why did you completely jump over 2024?

Having both money and the full allotment of draft picks, they could revamp the OL (our biggest issue IMO) in the 2024 draft and free agency getting a LT and G or C. They could add to the secondary in the same fashion. Likewise the front 7. And we know McSnead will get another weapon or two. I'd love a bellcow RB and another TE.

It looks like they have found an Edge (Young), DT (Turner), WR (Puka), G (Avila), P and possibly PK but who knows what else? RB? OL? Another Edge? CB? We shouldn't write off anybody just because they haven't played much this year.

We should learn a lot more over the 2nd half of the season and that should allow them to hone their aim for the 2024 draft and free agency.

Honestly, IMHO, the defense is way ahead of schedule and the offense only needs OL improvement and perhaps a bell cow RB and #2 TE.

Since the off season and draft transpired, the overwhelming majority of fans (and management) have been saying, "this is all about 2024", so I don't understand why you chose to skip over that and say "2025 will be the competitive season".

I also believe the premise "our foundation players won't be around beyond 2024-25" isn't accurate. AD, Kupp and Stafford may have more than just 2023-24 left. Furthermore, good teams develop new foundation players. We may have two replacements already on the roster (Puka and Turner). It's not blasphemy to think we can still win without AD and Kupp when the time comes that they retire.

[/zn/]

I also believe the premise "our foundation players won't be around beyond 2024-25" isn't accurate. AD, Kupp and Stafford may have more than just 2023-24 left. Furthermore, good teams develop new foundation players. We may have two replacements already on the roster (Puka and Turner). It's not blasphemy to think we can still win without AD and Kupp when the time comes that they retire.

On Donald and Stafford. Stafford can play until probably 38 (3 more years). Donald can play productively probably 3 more years.

More on AD. AD is in his 10th year.

Randle played for 14 years and was tailing off but still productive in year 13. 14 years for AD would be 2026.

Sapp played for 13 yeas and was tailing off but still productive in year 12. 13 years for AD would be 2o25.

Alan Page played for 15 years and was still productive in year 15. For AD 15 years would be 2027.

Randy White played for 14 years and was tailing off but still productive in year 13.

Steve McMichael played for 15 years and was tailing off but still productive in year 14.