St. Louis Rams 2011 Offseason Thread

[Lesson]

ICE, now with the schedule being posted, how many games do you think the Rams can win?

Conservatively, 5. Split against SF and SEA, sweep ARI and beat Washington. That's a really stout schedule.

You don't think they can beat the Bengals and Browns?

[Blitzer]

Predicting wins for next season is a complete joke. Theres absolutely no way to tell.

[vinsanity]

Wrong season. For me.

[InvincibleCakeEater]

ICE, now with the schedule being posted, how many games do you think the Rams can win?

Conservatively, 5. Split against SF and SEA, sweep ARI and beat Washington. That's a really stout schedule.

You don't think they can beat the Bengals and Browns?

Sure they can. That's why I put the +- at 2. Predicting W/L right now is a crapshoot. Gotta see how much talent is gained/lost and the coaching turnovers. In all likelihood, the Rams aren't as far away as I think and not as close as you think. That's what makes the NFL fun.

[Lesson]

If anyone is curious about the 2011 NFL Draft order, here it is:
Spoilered for size

[SHOW]

1. Carolina (2-14)
2. Denver (4-12)
3. Buffalo (4-12)
4. Cincinnati (4-12)
5. Arizona (5-11)
6. Cleveland (5-11)
7. San Francisco (6-10)
8. Tennessee (6-10)
9. Dallas (6-10)
10. Washington (6-10)
11. Houston (6-10)
12. Minnesota (6-10)
13. Detroit (6-10)
14. Miami (7-9)
15. St. Louis (7-9)
16. Jacksonville (8-8)
17. New England (14-2) Acquired from Oakland in the Richard Seymour trade.
18. San Diego (9-7)
19. New York Giants (10-6)
20. Tampa Bay (10-6)
21. Seattle (7-9)*
22. Indianapolis (10-6)*
23. Green Bay (10-6)*
24. Kansas City (10-6)*
25. Philadelphia (10-6)*
26. New York Jets (11-5)*
27. New Orleans (11-5)*
28. Chicago (11-5)*
29. Baltimore (12-4)*
30. Pittsburgh (12-4)*
31. Atlanta (13-3)*
32. New England (14-2)*

*= subject to change based on performance in the playoffs.

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2011/01/02/2011 ... aft-order/

Interesting that the Broncos have the #2 overall pick.

[longhornbaseball]

But yes, they are as bad as I think they are. 25th or so in offense and 20th or so in defense isn't good.

They weren't good on offense this year, but that is largely irrelevant as their #2 and #3 receivers will be lucky to even make the team next year. Bradford had the best season a rookie quarterback has ever had and he's only going to get better. A receiving corps of Clayton, Avery, Amendola, Alexander, and whoever they draft is a huge improvement over this year's receivers. The O-line isn't very good at run blocking, but they were 13th in the league in sacks allowed. This with a rookie left tackle and a sophomore right tackle who, like Bradford, are only going to get better. Fells and Hoomanawanui are at least passable at tight end. Jackson should still be among the best backs in the league.

On offense they need one more playmaker (who they will probably draft in the first round) and depth. Things are hardly dire.

The defense was prone to big plays, but was in the top half of the league in points allowed. They are solid up the middle with Laurinaitis and Atogwe. The D-line was among the best in football this year falling 1 short of finishing tied for first in the league in sacks. They clearly need help at linebacker and additional depth at cornerback. I'm sure they will address both positions in the draft and free agency.

There is a lot of work to be done with this team.

I don't think so. I'd set the over/under at 8 wins next year. I think they are clearly the best team in the West and on the fringes of competing with the better teams in the league.

[InvincibleCakeEater]

Assuming that young guys are only going to get better is foolish. I've learned that the hard way with my Chiefs. Derrick Johnson went from All Pro lock as a rookie to almost cut before this season. Flowers went from not being able to cover the deep in and quick slant to being an absolute shutdown corner.

[longhornbaseball]

Assuming that young guys are only going to get better is foolish.

What should we assume? That 22-24 year old athletes will get worse? Did you even watch the Rams more than twice this year? They have a nice foundation, and the worst division in football. They are the NFC West favorites next year, and if they draft well (like they did this past year) they should compete with the elites by 2012. I'm not claiming that they were a good team in 2010, but they are clearly a team on the rise.

[Richie Allen]

Assuming that young guys are only going to get better is foolish.

What should we assume? That 22-24 year old athletes will get worse? Did you even watch the Rams more than twice this year? They have a nice foundation, and the worst division in football. They are the NFC West favorites next year, and if they draft well (like they did this past year) they should compete with the elites by 2012. I'm not claiming that they were a good team in 2010, but they are clearly a team on the rise.

I think what he's saying is that there's not always predictable patterns in the NFL. If you look at my GB Packers over the past 7 years you see 10-6, 4-12, 8-8, 13-3, 6-10, 11-5 and 10-6 (in a year they were considered favorites to advance to the Super Bowl). Where's the trend there? The Bears: 13-3, 7-9, 9-7, 7-9 and 11-5 (in a year where they were picked, at best, third in the NFC North). Vikes, not much more consistent: 9-7, 6-10, 8-8, 10-6, 12-4 and 6-10 (a year removed from being a play away from advancing to the Super Bowl). You can certainly assume the Rams will be a little better next year and an elite team in 2012 if you want, but it's far from a safe bet.

[longhornbaseball]

I think what he's saying is that there's not always predictable patterns in the NFL. If you look at my GB Packers over the past 7 years you see 10-6, 4-12, 8-8, 13-3, 6-10, 11-5 and 10-6 (in a year they were considered favorites to advance to the Super Bowl). Where's the trend there? The Bears: 13-3, 7-9, 9-7, 7-9 and 11-5 (in a year where they were picked, at best, third in the NFC North). Vikes, not much more consistent: 9-7, 6-10, 8-8, 10-6, 12-4 and 6-10 (a year removed from being a play away from advancing to the Super Bowl).

Looking at the YtY win totals and trying to extrapolate a trend is retarded. I'm not saying the Rams will be better because they won 1 game in '09 and 7 games in '10. I'm saying they will be better because they have a strong core of young talent that includes the best young quarterback in the league.

You can certainly assume the Rams will be a little better next year and an elite team in 2012 if you want, but it's far from a safe bet.

What would be a safe bet?