World of Pageantry

iono bout seattle... i mean they have a great team and this is the year where we see holmgram staying or leaving but hmmm thats one gutsy call to put them on top.. i mean last season was last season and it doesnt matter how they ended it.. i dont but that sf will be third in the division.. i see them switchin spots with seattle.. dont get me wrong seattle is a good team with an outstanding offense... but sf personifies WEST COAST offense....

I agree. San Fransisco is a team that I think plays better than they look.
The Rams in second? The Rams had thier time a few years ago. Now they're just a mediocre team.

formermarcher wrote:The Rams in second? The Rams had thier time a few years ago. Now they're just a mediocre team.

The still have QB Warner, RB Faulk, and WR Bruce. Regardless of the rest of the team, if those three guys stay healthy the Rams can challenge for the playoffs.

the rams are a good team but with faulk hitting 30, this season may be hard on him... im juss saying pyshically... dont get me wrong he is a good running back but i dunno how many tackles his body can handle.. Bruce is a very good reciever but remember when the rams won the superbowl... they had bruce, hakim, and prohel... that was an explosive set of WRs.. now that warners options are limited on the pass i dont see them having an effective offense..

Well, Warner still has Isaac Bruce and Torry Holt as his top two receivers, and that's a good combo. #3 and #4 WRs Troy Edwards and Terrence Wilkins are capable, too, though not spectacular. Don't forget that Faulk is basically another receiver on every play; one of the best receiving RBs in the game. I'm not worried about Faulk's health just yet. 30 isn't that old in the NFL. Maybe in a few more years, though. It's also important to remember that the Rams got RT Kyle Turley from New Orleans. Now they've got a great OL that includes Turley, Adam Timmerman, and (once he's healthy) Orlando Pace. Warner should have plenty of time to throw, and since he's slower than a glacier that's a big key to the Rams' offense.

Phantom Phan wrote:

formermarcher wrote:The Rams in second? The Rams had thier time a few years ago. Now they're just a mediocre team.

The still have QB Warner, RB Faulk, and WR Bruce. Regardless of the rest of the team, if those three guys stay healthy the Rams can challenge for the playoffs.

They had those guys last year (except Faulk...I think he was injured).

formermarcher wrote:

Phantom Phan wrote:The still have QB Warner, RB Faulk, and WR Bruce. Regardless of the rest of the team, if those three guys stay healthy the Rams can challenge for the playoffs.

They had those guys last year (except Faulk...I think he was injured).

Warner wasn't healthy all season long, even though he kept playing. That's one of the reasons he had such a bad year.

I guess your right.
Wasn't it the year before last they made it to the Superbowl (lost to the Patriots)?

Yep yep. Let's not forget, St. Louis has made the Super Bowl two of the past four years. They won it in 2000 (after the 1999 season), and they lost in 2002 (after the 2001 season).

Phantom Phan wrote:Yep yep. Let's not forget, St. Louis has made the Super Bowl two of the past four years. They won it in 2000 (after the 1999 season), and they lost in 2002 (after the 2001 season).

Which is part of the reason I think they are going to decline. It happens to every team that wins the Superbowl or makes the playoffs alot the Cowboys, Skins, the broncos, to name a few.

formermarcher wrote:Which is part of the reason I think they are going to decline. It happens to every team that wins the Superbowl or makes the playoffs alot the Cowboys, Skins, the broncos, to name a few.

Indeed, but let's not forget that the decline doesn't happen until the star players leave. The Broncos didn't drop off until Elway retired. The 49ers didn't drop off until Young retired. Etc. The Rams still have all of their star players, and that's why I think they're still a threat in the NFC.

They have three super-star players...Bruce, Warner, and Faulk. There are some other noticable names on the team, but the are mainly on offense. I remember when they won the superbowls...they had the most points scored but also alot of points scored against.
Three players can't drive a team. It is a team, afterall. Maybe if everyone on the Rams would try harder to suceed and not expect those three guys to make most all the plays, then they'd finish strong. They had both Warner and Bruce last season. Faulk was injured, but that shouldn't make much of a difference. The Rams are a passing team, Warner is a great passer (when he's not injured). So I think it will be more or less the same as last year. Warner won't be injured, so they look more to the air. Bruce will have a good season, as will all the other recievers on the team. Faulk will run the ball, but not as much rushing plays as the Rams did last year.
And defense...any big names there, because I can't think of any.

formermarcher wrote:They have three super-star players...Bruce, Warner, and Faulk.

It depends on how you define "super-star." The team is LOADED with Pro Bowl caliber players: Warner, Faulk, Bruce, WR Torry Holt, OL Orlando Pace, Adam Timmerman, and Kyle Turley, DL Grant Wistrom and Leonard Little, S Adam Archuleta, and K Jeff Wilkins.

formermarcher wrote:I remember when they won the superbowls...they had the most points scored but also alot of points scored against... They had both Warner and Bruce last season. Faulk was injured, but that shouldn't make much of a difference. The Rams are a passing team, Warner is a great passer (when he's not injured). So I think it will be more or less the same as last year. Warner won't be injured, so they look more to the air. Bruce will have a good season, as will all the other recievers on the team. Faulk will run the ball, but not as much rushing plays as the Rams did last year.

Okay, sorry to criticize, but you're being foolish and don't quite know what you're talking about right now. I don't even know where to start...

1. "I remember when they won the superbowls...they had the most points scored but also alot of points scored against."

Wrong. When they made the Super Bowl after the 2001 season, they led the league in scoring and were near the top of the NFL in fewest points allowed (7th, actually; they outscored their opponents 503-273)

2. "They had both Warner and Bruce last season."

Warner was injured the entire year and only played in 7 games.

3. "Faulk was injured, but that shouldn't make much of a difference."

I'm sorry, but that's a very dumb statement. You're slighting one of the best running backs in NFL history. In 2001, when they made the Super Bowl, the Rams were 5th in NFL in rushing. Faulk played in 14 games and rushed for 1,382 yards and 12 TDs. In 2002, last year when they fell apart, Faulk was injured and only rushed in 7 games for 953 yards and 8 TDs. The result? They went from 5th in rushing in 2001 to 30th (next to last) in the NFL in rushing last year.

From 5th in rushing to 30th in rushing, and you're trying to tell me a healthy Marshall Faulk won't make much of a difference? And I haven't even mentioned that Faulk has been their #3 receiver each of the past two seasons (yes, even injured and only playing in 7 games he racked up enough receiving yards to finish #3 on the team). Faulk is a game-breaker.

3. "The Rams are a passing team, Warner is a great passer (when he's not injured). So I think it will be more or less the same as last year. Warner won't be injured, so they look more to the air. Bruce will have a good season, as will all the other recievers on the team. Faulk will run the ball, but not as much rushing plays as the Rams did last year."

Nonsense. How can you expect it to be like last year if everyone stays healthy? Even with Warner out, the Rams were still the #2 passing offense in the NFL. The Rams offense can be so explosive because it is BALANCED, and Faulk is a HUGE part of that.

(2001, Faulk's healthy) 416 rushing plays, 5th ranked rushing offense
(2002, Faulk's injured) 343 rushing plays, 30th ranked rushing offense

And Kurt Warner?

(2001, Warner's healthy) 4,830 yards passing; 36 TDs, 22 INTs.
(2002, Warner's injured) 1,431 yards passing; 3 TDs, 11 INTs.

A healthy Warner and a healthy Faulk makes this team Super Bowl caliber. They will run the ball more, and more effectively. They will still pass a ton. And let's not forget, after starting the 2002 season 0-5 with an injured Warner, the Rams finished with a 7-4 run.

This team should EASILY win 10-11 games. In fact, the more I look into the team, the more I think they might top Seattle for the NFC West title.

We're getting closer to opening kickoff. Less than two days to go!

Well, if you haven't totally and utterly discredited me yet, I want to put down my picks for opening week:

Skins over Jets (thursday game)
Rams over Giants
Bills over Patriots
Steelers over Ravens
Panthers over Jaguars
Dolphins over Texans
Colts over Browns
Broncos over Bengals
Cardinals over Lions
Packers over Vikings
Chargers over Chiefs
Falcons over Cowboys
Saints over Seahawks
49ers over Bears
Titans over Raiders
Bucs over Eagles (monday night game)

Thats them. Anyone else?