Once again the Rams get no love ...

*MauiRam* · #1 (**permalink**) -17-05-2007

Fox Sports rates all NFL teams on their off-season and draft acquisitions. Guess who had the lowest rating in the NFC West?? Yep ... the Rams ... Whiners got 2nd out of all 32 teams. Seahawks got #6 overall, the Cards at #12 and the Rams #13. We are the "Rodney Dangerfields" of the NFC West ...
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6817578

*Country* · #2 (**permalink**) -17-05-2007

I agree the Rams had a great, and not overly loud, offseason. At least they did throw money all over at guys like Clements, 80 million come on, and Kerney, old and on his way out.

*bruce4life* · #3 (**permalink**) -17-05-2007

we picked up players in need positions... not big name players just players that fit holes...

**AvengerRam** · #4 (**permalink**) -17-05-2007

To quote 14 year old girls everywhere...

What-ever!

*RAMMAN68* · #5 (**permalink**) -17-05-2007

The way I see it, we got personnel that will make a contribution to help this team improve. The Cards and ***** will still be going through growing pains while we are winning games. The squawks IMO did nothing impressive to elevate their team, and I don't see much quality depth. They are one serious injury away from mediocrity.

**laram0** · #6 (**permalink**) -17-05-2007

Here's a real brain teaser for you.

The Seahawks got #6?

Based on what?

**AvengerRam** · #7 (**permalink**) -17-05-2007

Well, the Seahawks signed Patrick Kerney, while the Rams only acquired James Hall. Kerney is obviously a stud, while Hall is a complete slouch, right?

Well... let's take a closer look:

Patrick Kerney (age 30)
Year/Games/Tackles/Sacks/Forced Fumbles
2004 16 66 13.0 2
2005 16 53 6.5 3
2006 9 16 4.5 2
Totals: 41 135 24.0 8

James Hall (age 29)
Year/Games/Tackles/Sacks/Forced Fumbles
2004 16 48 11.5 4
2005 14 59 5.0 3
2006 7 24 5.0 1
Totals: 37 137 21.5 8

Huge difference, huh?

*tomahawk247* · #8 (**permalink**) -17-05-2007

yeah, hall has put up pretty comparable stats in less games

#9 (**permalink**) -18-05-2007

I would put Rams 2nd in the division. How the Seahawks are #6 is beyond me.

**Nick** · #10 (**permalink**) -18-05-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by laram0

Here's a real brain teaser for you.

The Seahawks got #6?

Based on what?

The fact that the author himself isn't even sure if the Seahawks have improved from last year should be a clear indication that they shouldn't have been ranked at the #6 spot, IMO.

*Varg6* · #11 (**permalink**) -18-05-2007

Once again the Rams get no love...Story of our lives as fans of the Rams unfortunately. Honestly, I've said it before and I'll say it again, I enjoy being under the radar. It is not our time yet, and when it is, it'll be "shocking" to everyone. The spotlight is so overrated anyway!

...This is just another "how long until September, let's just write non-sense" article written by an "expert".

*MauiRam* · #12 (**permalink**) -18-05-2007

There is one thing I noticed that the "expert" probably didn't ... If you take the common denominator of the points awarded collectively to all teams in each division, the NFC West is easily the most improved division in the entire league with a collective 8.25 rating, as compared to say the NFC North division who collectively scored 21 points and they aren't even the worst ... That would belong to the AFC South with a rating of 24.5 ...

*MoonJoe* · #13 (**permalink**) -18-05-2007

I'm like Varg, I don't want to be on anyone's list. Except for the one that says "don't worry about this team"....other than that it is just a list of opinions. Talk to me in the middle or near the end of the season when the scoreboard tells the story. It's like winning in pre-season...so what!