I thought several of the comments in the thread missed what RR was saying. Which, BTW, I agree with ... if I am hearing him accurately.
For example, I don't think he is going to quit on the season if they don't win Sunday. He doesn't appear to me to be making any prediction at all, including a prediction on the consequences of losing this game.
The question we face NOW is how to assess what the Rams have done through 4 games. Beyond question, it is positive. It is more positive than they have shown in well over a decade. AND, it puts us in a position where continuing trends could put us in the playoffs. That's all very good.
The question, however, looms: have they showed the qualities of a team ready to take that step? And, I think, the answer here is mixed.
There is a difference after all between a team that gets hot for a few nail-biting wins and a team that is manifestly a contender. And, no, I am not disparaging defense-oriented teams. We have all seen hundreds of hot teams turn cold and fade. Remember the Rams' first year in STL? I believe they went 4-0. And then they regressed to who they were.
This, indeed, is what "regression to the mean" designates in statistics. Aberrations and anomalies occur. Over time, however, the pull of the mean is pretty strong. So, what are we seeing? A team that got hot? Or a team learning to contend?
Now, when I read RR, I relate to it as a fan. What the hell do I know? Not a damn thing. But I've been heart broken by this team all but 1 year since 19 freaking 68. Like RR, I face a decision. Do I get pumped up and start to believe? Or do I welcome incremental progress without getting excited, expecting the hot streak to fade?
See, that decision is mine and mine alone. It has to do with my personality, with what works for me. Some fans love to get worked up and embrace the excitement, even facing the prospect of having their heart broken again. Guys like me, and probably RR, make a different choice. I hate the crash that comes when unrealistic expectations meet reality. I'd rather protect my emotions by remaining skeptical until I see good reason to start risking my hopes. I can't be sure that's what RR is saying, but when I read his post, that's what I resonate with.
So, where do we stand? Well, in a better place than last year or the year before. But does it justify--drawing on current evidence--expectations of a breakthrough?
Well, many of us on the board here feel that current evidence has not yet addressed certain key issues. I'll mention 2, and neither involves the offense. This is NOT about demanding high octane point production.
First, there is the question of our defense. Is it elite? Many feel it is, but I would remind everyone that, once again, we have a defense that plays at elite levels for stretches of time but also breaks down. In SF, the offense started out OK, but then the defense began giving up the middle to a scrambler and allowed 2 TDs in the 1st half. The fragile O then collapsed. Against TB, it gave up 400 yards of passing.
Does an elite defense do that? I say it doesn't. To me, this is the same pattern we've seen year after year. An immensely talented defense that too bloody often surrenders the run, concedes first downs, and SOME GAMES yields points. The result is mediocre stats.
Want to "win ugly" with defense? Well, your defense better play consistently better than ours has so far. Of course, we're only 4 games in. But the pattern thus far is the same as when we booked 2 consecutive shut outs and then collapsed against the mighty G-Man offense. To hope for more than a .500 record (which would be an improvement) I need to see a defense that plays tough 3, 4, 5 games in a row and gets its stats into the elite range. No defense is elite with the stats we're recording. (Hell, you can't even blame the offense for failing to produce in the TB game!) And that isn't enough to "win ugly" 9-10 times in a season.
And then there's Fisher. Many observers on this board have seen him blunder and laze and stumble about for 4 years. We've seen him fail to prepare his team for Game 1 and for almost every really big game we've had. He has a bleeding TRACK RECORD of lame performance. To get my hopes up ... I need to see him show a trend of competence over 4, 5, 6 games. Game preparations. A team playing 4 quarters. Reducing silly mistakes. In-game adjustments. Competitive discipline. Want to "win ugly"? You better do those things. You'd better be a team that refuses to beat itself.
Have we seen this? Surely not in SF. I'll let you guys who have watched and studied the games say more on the later games. But, I don't hear much that tells me Fisher is raising his game as a coach. Before I get excited, I have to see him out-coaching or at least coaching level with his opposition time after time.
Now, see, we have seen his teams for 4 years. It takes more than a hot start to offset that, especially when, even during wins, the same old patterns seem to be there. I think it was Max who asked,
how many shock wins will it take before I believe? For me, the answer is, quite a few. Half a season at least.
But, remember, this is just me, and probably a number of other posters. Some of you want to get on the bandwagon? Hey! Enjoy every minute of it. I'm not making any predictions here. I'm just testifying to my sense of where the losing patterns have been and telling you what I need to see work out on the field before ... I start to believe. That's all this is about. And perhaps that's all RR was writing.
I'm a crusty old curmudgeon of a Ram fan who has never lived in a city where their games are on TV much. They've broken my heart again and again and again. It takes something real, extended over at least half a season, probably more, before I start to believe. But remember--I'll always love this sorry team, and if my Ram brothers enjoy a hot streak, well, that actually makes me smile.
