Quote
Deadpool
without their starting LT and proceeded to lose their starting RT for the season and their RG to a concussion. Still scored a bunch of points, with a QB that was a victim of a constantly injured OL. And he looked great. Even without 3/5 of his OL. So he was left with his LG, C, TE and a WR from the team that started the season. We aren't talking a specific unit, its almost an entire side of the ball is backups.
My real point is I don't have time for excuses or "reasons" why a team lost. Good teams overcome with coaching and depth. This team has neither.
You know why the Rams lost yesterday? 4 FGs, turn 1 or 2 into TDs and that ballgame has an entirely different look.It had nothing to do with 3 DL out.
I'm not even unpset about the loss yesterday. I was ready for it. You had a team at home you should beat that isn't a division rival and thats what I call a Fisher Special. it had loss written all over it. its too bad the first day I've had off in 4 weeks was a loss, but there's plenty of season.
I have spent a lot of time talking about unit injuries. I always say, you need your OL to be relatively healthy. I would say 2 injuries is not massive OL depletion if at least one of the back-ups is decent. Compare that to the Rams in 2007, when they lost 10 linemen to injury, including 4 for the season and 6 for extended periods. The only uninjured player was Barron (ironically, I suppose). So relatively healthy, the term I always use to discuss OLs, is a kind of norm. Now if they lost one of the replacements and then the center and guard, they would start to get diminishing returns. I don't see how they couldn't.
No good teams crash and burn, or at least fall off from normal effectiveness, all the time because of injuries---if they are significant. LIke losing several linemen and the starting qb when there was no one behind the qb but a normal #2 type and you couldn't make a trade. Do you think the Vikes do as well with Hill instead of Bradford? I don't.
I know why the Rams lost yesterday and said so myself several times. Basically it got down to 2 turnovers. That's what I put the blame on. The defense adjusted in the 2nd half and played more effectively. But then if they had lost all three of the linemen for the season, no one in their right mind would expect that unit to perform as well as it had been performing for the rest of the season.
I thought they lost because the Rams did not execute against a defense that was going to be stingy allowing points. Under those conditions they could not afford to have turnovers leading to scores, which is an execution issue. I don't have an anti-Fisher thing so that's not on speed dial for me.
