St. Louis Rams 2010 Season Thread

A forum for non-baseball sports
Post Reply
User avatar
vinsanity
Chili dog truther
Posts: 8833
Joined: July 3 06, 2:19 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Re: St. Louis Rams 2010 Season Thread

Post by vinsanity »

lukethedrifter wrote:6-10 IS bad. Anyway, I've badgered you enough and it's probably a smart idea to go in with really low expectations.
Why is it bad? In the NFL it's not unusual for a .500 team to make the playoffs. And maybe there's miscommunication about what 'bad' is?

I don't feel comfortable using win %, cause 6-10 is a 37.5 Win %, and only the Pirates have a worse Win % in the NL this year.

6-10 would likely put us in the bottom third of NFC, would have gotten us 3rd in the division, 10th in the NFC. Which is almost middle third. By shear chance there are 16 teams in the NL this year, and I believe the Brewers are 10th in the NL with a .466 Win %.

I wouldn't say the Mets or Brewers or even Houston are having 'bad' years. Certainly not good, certainly sub-par and certainly less than enjoyable. But I reserve the 'bad' for the D-Backs, Pirates, Indians, Orioles, M's.

6-10 would mean they won at least one game they weren't favored to win, it'd be a vast improvement over the previous season, it'd probably mean Bradford didn't totally [expletive] up and the defense held together pretty well with Spag's system and give us an early enough pick to still get top of the line talent who could start next year and be an impact player in the future. I don't think that's a bad season.

User avatar
lukethedrifter
darjeeling sipping elite
Posts: 37257
Joined: October 17 06, 11:19 am
Location: Huis Clos

Re: St. Louis Rams 2010 Season Thread

Post by lukethedrifter »

vinsanity wrote:
lukethedrifter wrote:6-10 IS bad. Anyway, I've badgered you enough and it's probably a smart idea to go in with really low expectations.
Why is it bad? In the NFL it's not unusual for a .500 team to make the playoffs. And maybe there's miscommunication about what 'bad' is?

I don't feel comfortable using win %, cause 6-10 is a 37.5 Win %, and only the Pirates have a worse Win % in the NL this year.

6-10 would likely put us in the bottom third of NFC, would have gotten us 3rd in the division, 10th in the NFC. Which is almost middle third. By shear chance there are 16 teams in the NL this year, and I believe the Brewers are 10th in the NL with a .466 Win %.

I wouldn't say the Mets or Brewers or even Houston are having 'bad' years. Certainly not good, certainly sub-par and certainly less than enjoyable. But I reserve the 'bad' for the D-Backs, Pirates, Indians, Orioles, M's.

6-10 would mean they won at least one game they weren't favored to win, it'd be a vast improvement over the previous season, it'd probably mean Bradford didn't totally [expletive] up and the defense held together pretty well with Spag's system and give us an early enough pick to still get top of the line talent who could start next year and be an impact player in the future. I don't think that's a bad season.
Let me explain it to you this way. 6-10 is, in a vacuum, in no way a good NFL football season. Also it is not a heinously terrible one like we're used to. It's just not good, well below average and thus I call it bad. And I would not be unhappy with it as a Rams fan.
Again, 6-10 is a Not Good NFL season that I would be just fine with.

User avatar
vinsanity
Chili dog truther
Posts: 8833
Joined: July 3 06, 2:19 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Re: St. Louis Rams 2010 Season Thread

Post by vinsanity »

lukethedrifter wrote:Again, 6-10 [in a vacuum] is a Not Good NFL season that I would be just fine with.
I think it's just a matter of semantics, I totally agree with the above statement. I just wouldn't be disappointed with even just 4 wins.

Freed Roger
Seeking a Zubaz seamstress
Posts: 26073
Joined: September 4 07, 1:48 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: St. Louis Rams 2010 Season Thread

Post by Freed Roger »

vinsanity wrote:
lukethedrifter wrote:Again, 6-10 [in a vacuum] is a Not Good NFL season that I would be just fine with.
I think it's just a matter of semantics, I totally agree with the above statement. I just wouldn't be disappointed with even just 4 wins.

Saw a web pic of Spagnuolo with story banner "NFL Coaches on the hot seat". Can he really be on the hot seat with such low expectations? - Not factoring in whether Kroenke is a "spags" guy

User avatar
lukethedrifter
darjeeling sipping elite
Posts: 37257
Joined: October 17 06, 11:19 am
Location: Huis Clos

Re: St. Louis Rams 2010 Season Thread

Post by lukethedrifter »

Freed Roger wrote:
vinsanity wrote:
lukethedrifter wrote:Again, 6-10 [in a vacuum] is a Not Good NFL season that I would be just fine with.
I think it's just a matter of semantics, I totally agree with the above statement. I just wouldn't be disappointed with even just 4 wins.

Saw a web pic of Spagnuolo with story banner "NFL Coaches on the hot seat". Can he really be on the hot seat with such low expectations? - Not factoring in whether Kroenke is a "spags" guy
If they lose their first 5 games he and his Four Pillars probably should be fired

User avatar
Lesson
Grandmaster Flashchat
Posts: 6623
Joined: February 4 10, 4:35 pm

Re: St. Louis Rams 2010 Season Thread

Post by Lesson »

The PD is reporting Danario Alexander has an injury on his left leg.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football ... 78c22.html

User avatar
Lesson
Grandmaster Flashchat
Posts: 6623
Joined: February 4 10, 4:35 pm

Re: St. Louis Rams 2010 Season Thread

Post by Lesson »

BTW, Bradford was named the starter.

User avatar
InvincibleCakeEater
GRB's obsessive compulsive baseball poster
Posts: 28259
Joined: October 12 07, 12:28 pm
Location: Raptured

Re: St. Louis Rams 2010 Season Thread

Post by InvincibleCakeEater »

Rams traded late round considerations for WR Mark Clayton.

User avatar
MrCrowesGarden
'Burb Boy
Posts: 24841
Joined: July 9 06, 11:33 am
Location: Out of the Loop

Re: St. Louis Rams 2010 Season Thread

Post by MrCrowesGarden »

InvincibleCakeEater wrote:Rams traded late round considerations for WR Mark Clayton.
Schefter says it's the Rams 6th for Clayton and Baltimore's 7th. That's not bad.

User avatar
lukethedrifter
darjeeling sipping elite
Posts: 37257
Joined: October 17 06, 11:19 am
Location: Huis Clos

Re: St. Louis Rams 2010 Season Thread

Post by lukethedrifter »

Doesn't seem like Clayton adds much except more of the same. Not a bad deal, of course, but nothing to get excited about. Hope I'm wrong.

Post Reply