I know you;'re just doing 2007-2011. But from 2004-2016, they went 68-140 (32,7% winning percentage). Things did improve though in 2012. The problem with 2012-2015 (excluding 2016 which was a different animal with different things happening) is that they had BOTH a stable, relatively healthy, decently veteran OL PLUS a starting caliber qb in only 15 of 64 games. The truth is, winning 27 of 64 games under those conditions is something of an achievement.
This team would not be winning NOW if they had not inherited and kept a large portion of the previous team's starters. I mean I think with Goff and McVay and Kromer and Phillips they WOULD WIN eventually, but the truth is---as Demoff himself said---in terms of personnel, this was not a rebuild. It was more of a renovation.
And actually the 90s was worse. From 90-98, they went 45-99 (31.25% winning percentage)
It;s why you have to look past the record sometimes. Sometimes the record taken at face value hides things instead of revealing them. Last 5 years was not fool's gold, it was more like a pretty decent REAL gold strike that got buried under a flood and an avalanche.
Even 2007-2011, when they went 15-65 (18.75% winning percentage), there are contextual things. The Rams had a long series of massive OL injuries from 2007-2011, with the only year they escaped that being 2010. Really, that was about as catastrophic a series of OL losses as any team I can think of, ever, let alone just in Rams history. The result was beat up qbs (Bulger 2007-2009, Bradford 2011). Actually in 2011 it wasn't just the OL or the qb...according to Football Outsiders, the 2011 Rams had the most injuries of any offense since 2002, and that's not counting them losing 10 CBs that year (10!)
Anyway. Why did some of us stick with it, including the 90s? IMO, we' re diehards. That's just a thing we are. I don't think any of us actually CHOSE to be diehards. You;re just born that way I think.
