 TO THE DOUBTERS---STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE &
LUCKBY JERICHOHOLLIC (Oct 19 from post.net) |
||
| Back
to the Main Page FEATURES- The E-Zine's Quarterback Watch- -Front Office Debate- Ram-ble's Offseason Analyses Zack Neruda's FOD Analysis "E-ZINE" Fan Profiles- GRITS Ram Fan Smack Chick The HERD's home- RAMS Message Board Add yourself to The HERD's Official Roster (guestbook), if you think you are man enough! The HERD's ULTIMATE link page-add your favorite here! |
[Edited by zn] I have to laugh (out loud) at the doubters and their anti-Rams rants about their "luck" and their "strength of schedule." Clearly, the first issue that must be addressed is this whiny "strength of schedule" thing. You see. . . there's been *NO TEAM* in professional football . . . hell---professional SPORTS!---that has gotten fatter more often playing a soft schedule than the San Francisco 49ers did all those years. The 49ers racked up NFC West titles, posted those "impressive" double-digit win totals, got home field advantage throughout the playoffs . . . ALL BASED ON THE STRENGTH OF THEIR SCHEDULE, MOST OF IT AGAINST THE NFC WEST TEAMS, YEAR IN YEAR OUT. I mean, come on! Every year---for years on end---San Francisco was virtually GUARANTEED at LEAST six or seven---and many times EIGHT--- wins a season, thanks to the ineptitude of the teams in New Orleans, Carolina, Atlanta and Los Angeles/St. Louis. Every year. Seems like things were a-okay, as long as it was the 49ers were beating up on the sisters of the poor. But, when the Rams suddenly rise up and start beating teams to the edge of consciousness that simply aren't in their class . . . HOLD THE PHONE! IT'S CRIMINAL, I TELL YOU! CRIMINAL! STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE! STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE! How pathetic is that, anyway? Before the season began all the doubters kept telling everyone how bad the Rams were going to be in 99. And now, when they've proven you so embarrassingly wrong, they crawl under this "strenght of schedule" rock! And what about this "luck" thing? The Rams are lucky that Jamal Anderson got hurt? Steve Young? I didn't realize Anderson was a defensive lineman---or that Young was a cornerback. Because, that's the *ONLY* way they would have played a role. Look at the stats---the Rams are averging 37 points a GAME - and have led all their games by AT LEAST TWO TDs! Do you doubters understand the effect those points have on the opposition----especially early in the game? No, you don't. All you want to talk about is how injuries affected the Rams' opposition. St. Louis busted Atlanta's chops TWICE, right off the bat. Put them in a deep, deep, deep hole . . . which all but made the Falcon running game a rumor. Backs like Anderson are great when you can play ball-control football. But they're all but null and void when a team is forced to play catch-up from their first possession. (Remember the Rams with Dickerson? Remember what happened to that threat if and when they fell behind?) Right now, the Rams are playing offense like the Lakers of Magic Johnson used to play basketball . . . wave after wave of points, in-your-face, head-for-the-hills style aggressive play. The Rams are coming out and punching people right in the face right off the bat. By the time the other teams recover, they're down 14, 17, 20 points . . . and that week's offensive game plan goes the way of the pet rock. You want to talk about the difference Steve Young would have made in the 'Niner game? Sure! Get him in there. Did you happen to see what happened to San Francisco with Young the day Jacksonville beat the 'Niners bloody? Didn't seem to make much of a difference there, did he? And now the doubters want to tell me he would have survived the Rams game that day? The Rams went up 21 points in the FIRST QUARTER that day! How many times do you think the Rams would have bounced Young off the turf that day, with him having to throw on virtually every down? My guess is that he just may have taken the hit that would have ended his career. Terrell Owens was out that game? Yeah. Sure. He played more than three quarters that day. And now you want to tell me he was out. Whatever, Dr. Football. Finally . . . let's undertand something. Teams have "luck" when their desparation fourth quarter drives are kept alive by borderline penalties---like San Francisco had during their victory over New Orleans. They have "luck" when their opponents try running sweeps on two point conversions with a chance to tie the game. That's luck. But, teams that win games by scores of 27-10, and 35-7, and 38-10, and 42-20, and 41-13 . . . that's not luck. "Luck" doesn't enter into it when one team can beat the other by three or four touchdowns. By the way . . . you think the Titans are gonna bite 'em, huh? Old Neil O'Donnell? And the Saints, right? The 1-4 Saints, whose offense is comparable to some Division I-AA team? Carolina? Allowed 30 to San Francisco . . . and another 30 to Washington? They're going to do it? |
|