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.