How do the Rams do it?

[AvengerRam]

We all know the facts. Since 1999, the Rams have a regular season record of 64-32 (.667). That's an average of 10-11 wins per year. They've made the playoffs 5/6 years, won their division 3 times, won the conference championship 2 times, and won the Super Bowl in 1999/2000.

Like any successful team, particularly in the age of free agency, the Rams have had their share of turnover. Of the 22 starters from the team that won the Super Bowl, the Rams have a total of 5 players (Faulk, Bruce, Holt, Pace, Timmerman) remaining, along with three players who didn't start in the Super Bowl (Little, R.Williams, J.Williams), and kicker Jeff Wilkins.

The team has been able to sustain a successful run for six years, and goes into the 2005 season as a playoff contender, at least.

And yet...

How often do you read about how well the Rams have drafted over this period?

How often do you read about how well the front office has managed the salary cap?

How often do you read about the coaching staff's ability to find ways to replace the parts that have been lost through free agency, injury and age?

How often do you read about the Rams being smart consumers in the free agency market?

This team must be doing something right.

[ZigZagRam]

Dare I say...the Martz factor?

[Ramsfan8503]

its the leadership from those superbowl players

[majorram]

To me everybody likes to put the winner down!!!! thats what has happen to the Rams, we ARE winners and a Dam good footie team and the media just hate this....they love to put this team down...

I too think that the Nfl Brass hate Martz 'because' he does things different and doesn't follow the trend and I for one LOVE THAT!!!! :tongue:


steve :ramlogo:

[RamTime]

Some may say that being in the cozy NFC west has something to do with it. However NFL football is NFL football and on any sunday.....

[moklerman]

I think being in the worst division in football, having no true rivalry to this point(sorry Seahawks, you have to win a game every once in a while to make it a rivalry. Think Red Sox/Yankees. 26 World Series vs. 1 isn't really a rivalry for the Yankees.) and the Cards and 'Niners being as bad as they've ever been for most of the '99-04 timeframe lends to the Rams' "success".

1999-2001 was obviously the pennacle of Rams fandom. 2002 was utterly forgettable. 2003 was nice but ultimately everyone knew they were pretenders that year. 2004 was dubious at best. A possible culmination of this regime's moves and philosophies catching up with them.

[AvengerRam]

So that's the answer? The Rams success over the past 6 years has been primarily due to a weak division?

Well, there's some truth to that. The Rams non-divisional record since 1999 is 31-23 (.574). But that's still a pretty decent winning percentage.

Nonetheless, the Rams have done a better job of sustaining success than most teams during that span. I still say the coverage of the Rams front office is dispropotionately harsh given that fact.

[HUbison]

The Rams success over the past 6 years has been primarily due to a weak division?

Maybe last year, but not over that whole span. No NFC division has as many wild-card teams as the West over that same time period.

[moklerman]

It's just a matter of how you look at it. I mean, instead of a six year span (1999-2004) what if you look at the three year totals? We all agree that the current team isn't the GSOT, right? It doesn't paint a very pretty picture of how Martz is molding the team. One winning season and a .500 record in the past three years. Overall, his record is still good but there is a downward trend that has been developing.

[AvengerRam]

I don't think there's a downward trend. In fact, I'd bet good money that the Rams will have a winning record this year.

[moklerman]

I don't think there's a downward trend.

The numbers don't agree with you. There's a very stark contrast between Martz's first three years and his last three years. Compared to his earlier results I think the trend has definitely been downward.

I agree that the Rams have made some positive moves and it can only improve their chances if the defense/special teams finally play above the cellar level. Seattle and Arizona have been making some improvements as well so I foresee a situation where the NFC West will be tougher as a whole. One of those teams will be on the outside looking in at the end of the season regardless of whether or not they are playing improved ball.

In the past, as long as the Rams improved it somewhat gauranteed that they would take the division since the 'Hawks and Card's always seemed to tread water. I don't think that's the case this year.

[ZigZagRam]

In the past, as long as the Rams improved it somewhat gauranteed that they would take the division since the 'Hawks and Card's always seemed to tread water. I don't think that's the case this year.

I agree Mok, as this offseason unfolds the Cardinals have done an excellent job of bringing in talent and the Seahawks have done ok themselves. I think we're in for a challenge this next season unless the defense and special teams improves more than I expect.

That said, I still think we're the team to beat in the West.

[DJRamFan]

I said at the end of the season that AZ would be on the upswing next season and could challenge even before the Warner signing. The move out of LA and the reorganization of divisions may have lessened the "rivalries." The Martz factor is definitely a key as many people don't like him for whatever reason. I don't know if I would consider the Rams winners over the past six seasons. They've had one great season and a few really good seasons with bad and mediocre seasons mixed in. The numbers show a winning percentage over that time, and i realize that.

[Nick]

Think Red Sox/Yankees. 26 World Series vs. 1 isn't really a rivalry for the Yankees

Wait, what? You don't think the Yankess/Red Sox have a "real" rivalry because of the disparity in World Series success between the teams? I don't watch baseball at all, but one of the few things I know is that there's a HUGE rivalry between Yankees/Red Sox. I don't think actual championships need to be any kind of requirement for that.

[sbramfan]

you have to win a game every once in a while to make it a rivalry.

This is what Joe Horn said about the Rams/Saints rivalry on that monday night game a few years back- the one where Turley said he was gonna take the Rams lunch money! Gotta admit, that saints thing was starting to brew pretty good before they kicked them out of our division.

As for the front office credit, I do recall that in 2001 they were talking up the Rams FO like they now do the Pats. However, since then many of the draft picks have been busts, the Rams haven't made it deep into the playoffs, and are now identified as one of the older teams in the league, as compared to a team like the Seahawks, who have a lot of young starters on their team.

However, with all the moves the Seahawks have made, and I think they've done better than just about any team in FA, are they possibly selling away the future when it comes to getting into cap hell in a few years with all these signings? I mean I thought they were supposed to be in some pretty bad shape going into this offseason, then they sign their RB/QB/OT and get a DE, a LB, (a CB?) and 2 WR's. wow.

And they weren't just bodies, they got some of the better FA's out there.