Quote
dzrams
Quote
Suh-weet!
Quote
dzrams
Quote
Rams43
Quote
dzrams
I wouldn't say our offense was "magnificent." They played well but IMO they left points on the board.
They had the opportunity to hang 45 themselves on NO. They didn't.
Is 35 points really enough nowadays? There is unprecedented scoring this year. Offenses are better than ever.
Against high scoring teams, the Rams may need to put up 40 like the Saints, KC, and NE have been doing.
These teams are averaging 35+ so if we expect to win, the offense must go in with the mentality that they need to put up 45.
On second thought, this isn't a nitpick. This is a big freakin deal. In today's NFL climate, there is only one good defense: the Ravens.
Would “extremely well” suit you better, dz? Lol.
Rams only punted 3 times.
Overcame a 21 point deficit.
Put up 35 points in 25 minutes TOP.
All in the Superdome, a notoriously difficult venue for visitors.
My point was that the O certainly wasn’t the reason for the L yesterday. So yeah, I call their response under extreme circumstances magnificent.
Look, I'm not putting the bulk of the blame for the loss on the offense. And I give the entire team a massive amount of credit for the comeback. That shows character and I expected no less.
Overall, I'm impressed with the mental fortitude of the team.
However, the offense playing "magnificent", "extremely well", or simply "well" (my preferred choice b/c we lost and left points on the board), however you want to describe it, it wasn't perfect when perfect was what we needed. Further, against elite teams perfect may be what's required in the future.
The Saints played perfectly; our offense needed to match with their own perfect performance. I think we've got to move away from this idea that 35 is enough.
Look at the points left on the board or given to their board....
Missed FG
Zero points after a TO at the their 18.
The INT which was -7 for the offense
The Higbee dropped TD pass...didn't we only end up with 3 rather than 7 on that drive?
A couple of the FGs - like where Goff hit Kupp short of the 1st down but could have hit Cooks for the 1st to extend the drive - we need to do better and get 7
It's a team loss.
And I'm harping on it because when we face KC, NO, and NE - all teams in which there is a very good chance we'll see in the playoffs or SB - I think we'll need pedal to the medal 40+ scoring outbursts so I just can't be happy with 35...especially when our offense essentially gave them 7.
First, a picayune point: "The INT which was -7 for the offense." Well, no. -3 for the offense, but there's no rule that says the D had to allow the Saints a TD there.
To the larger point: The Saints fumbled early in their own end and got stopped multiple times in the 2nd half, which allowed the Rams to get back in it. But you say they were perfect. You say that because they won. But, had the Rams scored 46, would you consider the Saints less than perfect because they didn't score enough to win? Each team got, what, 10 or 11 possessions. Does that mean the Rams' O needs to score 10 x 7 = 70 pts to have done an "excellent" job?
To say that teams win or as "teams" is
always true. All three units can ALWAYS do more than they actually do. In yesterday's game, I think it's fair to say that the offense came MUCH closer to maxing out what it could do than the defense did to maxing out what it could do.
I probably did say the Saints were perfect because they won. I'll grant that's overstating their performance.
And I'll grant that the D had something to do with allowing 7 rather than keeping it to 3. So let's call it -3 for the offense.
But I think you missed my larger point. In today's climate of high octane, scoring offenses, 35 points is simply not enough.
If the Rams offense had of scored 42 points, and didn't give any back, I would say the offense did about as well as reasonably expected. I'd be happy with them.
But in today's offense-centric league,
35 points isn't an expected win against the great teams. And it's definitely not enough when you're giving some points back due to turnovers.
So to your question, in a general sense, I would call it an excellent job at 45+ points but wouldn't complain with anything over 40.
More specifically, I call it excellent when opportunities are maximized, points weren't clearly left on the board, and/or points weren't given to the other team.
I agree with your last sentence with this caveat: the offense wasn't close to maxing out what it could do. And on a team where it's the strongest unit, in a league that's all about offense, it needs to max out - not just get close - if we want to win.
Let me say this now: we will need more than 35 to beat KC in a couple of weeks.
Teams are scoring 24 pts/game on average now, up a couple points from last year.
But really? 42 points with no "give backs" is what it'd take for you to be satisfied? KC and NO have each given the ball away 8 times, the Pats 13 times. I have no idea how many of those led directly to scores. And they miss field goals, etc. The Broncos in 2013 scored 39/game, most ever, and had some number of "give backs" that led to points. They also had a D and special teams that scored points for them too.
If the most prolific offense in NFL history can't come within a touchdown (at least, I'm guessing) of your standard for satisfaction (allowing for adjustments in re "give aways," etc.), it just may be too high. KC is even further away from that standard.
And, happily, I think you're wrong. Whether it's the Rams or some other team, I'll guess that whoever wins the Super Bowl this year will NOT have needed to score 40+ in every playoff game.
Finally, the Rams didn't invest crazy dollars in their defense so they could *hold* the Chiefs/Saints/Pats/whoever to under 40 pts. I'm very hopeful that our D can do much better than that!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/2018 02:33PM by Suh-weet!.
