And look, I know that I'm excusing them here.
It's possible that what I'm going to say is full of holes (like the defense). You decide.
So here's the thing.
How many times do teams go full bore with their offensive gameplan against the Rams, simply because they believe they have to?
I'm not talking about giving us their best effort. I think a lot of that is happening, too.
I'm talking about their offensive philosophy for the game.
Do opposing coaches say to themselves "We are going to have to score 35 points or better to beat the Rams, so we have to do some things that we wouldn't normally do. We're going to have to take some chances offensively that I'd rather not take, but we HAVE to do it!"?
It's not that teams don't want to score in every game, but there's still a balance to be maintained between risk and reward, and maybe they are choosing risk when they go against the Rams.
They're saving things for the Rams that wouldn't be in their regular playbook.
They're going out of their comfort zone, and finding that it works.
Now, the defense hasn't been good. No argument. A lot of teams might not have let Hill run wide open late in the game like that.
But are they really worse than some of the sad sacks?
An example - I wonder, is 26 points
really all that the Chiefs could manage to score against Arizona the week before?
Or is 26 points all they needed, when the Cards could only score 14?
If they had to score 35 or 40 or 45 against the Cards defense in order to win, could they have done it? My bet is they could.
Here's the rebuttal to myself that I can think of. If teams are taking extra risks against us for extra rewards, how come it doesn't seem to blow up in their face?
Why aren't we getting more turnovers? Well, we did last night, but they still kept scoring like a whacked out pinball machine.
Ramily!
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 11/20/2018 01:52PM by Saguaro.
